And You Thought You Hated President Bush!
Billionaire George Soros
Billionaire Peter B. Lewis
Most American citizens are content whomever is in the Oval office, do their 40 hours at work, take their check and enjoy the weekend. Some Americans are unhappy with the condition of the country. And a select few will do ANYTHING to see that President Bush is removed from office. 2 of these men are billionaires George Soros and Peter B. Lewis.
Mr. Soros is President of Soros Fund Management and Chief Investment Advisor to Quantum Fund N.V., a $12 billion international investment fund that is generally recognized as having had the best performance record in the world during its 25-year history.
Peter B. Lewis is the chairman, chief executive and president of The Progressive Corporation. Progressive is the nation's third-largest auto insurer. Lewis started as a local Cleveland car insurer. Today his Progressive does about $9 billion in sales a year.
Steve Kirsch, who made his fortune when he sold his Internet
company, Infoseek, is also joining in the anti-Bush donations. Also, Hollywood
billionaire Stephen Bing donated $1 million to MoveOn.org.
However, both men will stop at nothing short of a gunshot to unseat President Bush and the Republicans from the White House. Soros in the Washington Post speaks of defeating Bush: "It is the central focus of my life," The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death." Asked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros said, "If someone guaranteed it."
Both of these men have given $2.5 Million a piece to the left leaning organization MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org so far off center, it opposed it opposed any U.S. military response after the terror attacks of 9/11, asking instead for a ``peaceful response to break the cycle of violence.'' It was founded by Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, (computer entrepreneurs who also created the flying toaster computer screen saver), during the Clinton impeachment debate as an online petition urging Congress to censure him and move on to other business. It has become more powerful than the Democratic party itself in the advertising world. MoveOn.org plans to spend $15 million on anti-Bush ads.
Both Soros and Lewis also gave $10 Million a piece to the newly formed Americans Coming Together. Bill and Hillary Clinton are maneuvering to replace the Democratic party with Americans Coming Together, according to former adviser Dick Morris in a New York Post column. Harold Ickes, President Clinton's former deputy chief of staff, is working closely with Soros to fund and run it as well. Morris believes the Clinton's move to circumvent the Democratic Party is to provide a "lifeboat" for the likelihood that, at that point, were Dean takes the prize, he will fire their close associate, Terry McAuliffe, and take control of the Democratic National Committee according to WorldNetDaily. Morris says, "No longer will its [DNC's] treasury be available to the Clintons to use as their private fund, channeling donations to candidates and causes they favor or that favor them." Worried by the Dean campaign support before the elections started, he said, "they [the Clintons] are working on stripping the Democratic Party of its central role and giving it to the more pliant Americans Working Together, instead." The Democratic Party, limited to donations of $2,000 per person by the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law has been unable to raise enough hard money for a national campaign. That means it essentially is ceding its main role to Americans Coming Together, Morris said.
In an article in the Washington Post, George Soros compared the Bush administration to Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union. Someone needs to remind him that Nazis and Communists follow left-leaning, Anarchist, Authoritarian, views.
But Soros has his own big special interests. He has been accused of ''destabilizing world currencies and wrecking the economies of nations.'' A French court found him guilty of insider trading and fined him $2.3 million in 2002. He has been called the ''Daddy Warbucks'' of drug legalization, spending more than $15 million initiatives pushing the issue.
Lewis is on the "legalize marijuana" train as well. Since 1996, seven states have passed ballot measures allowing the medical use of marijuana. In the seven states for which data are available, the measures are being financed by what might be deemed the holy trinity of drug policy reform: George Soros, Peter B. Lewis, and John Sperling. All three of these exceptionally rich men may have given to a wide range of philanthropic causes, but changing pot laws is apparently high on their list. Headquarters of the effort is a California-based operation, the Campaign for New Drug Policies. The Campaign's financial director, Lanicia Bentley, told Capital Eye that the organization's primary funders are Soros, Sperling, and Lewis. Bentley said the group supports initiative efforts in California, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah.
Of course on a trip to New Zealand, Lewis was arrested and admitted to three charges of importing drugs after customs officers found two ounces of hashish and 1.7 ounces of marijuana in his luggage. Of course, Lewis said he was carrying the drugs for "medicinal purposes." The Washington Times reported that the incident "sparked a political furor after the charges were dropped and his identity was suppressed by a court in New Zealand." New Zealand Judge David Harvey dropped the charges and invited Lewis to watch the challenger rounds for the Americas Cup yacht race while in New Zealand and to "enjoy the fresh air." The judge had issued a suppression order against the release of Lewis name, stating, "The consequences of publication would far outweigh the crime".
There is one troubling thing about all of this when you look at the big picture. There are so many social issues in the U.S. that are lacking in funding. Shelters, drug rehabilitation (not only by liberal Hollywood stars), Habitat for Humanity, Public Health research (cancer, AIDS, etc.), libraries, schools, colleges, inner-city problems, the Peace Corp, etc; all these need help financially. The Democratic party is supposed to be the party that aggressively attacks and solves these issues. Here you have billionaires who could be great philanthropists but choose to throw away their money on useless issues. They heavily support lobby for the legalization of marijuana and assisted suicide, and give even more millions away to organizations whose only objective is to make anti-Bush ads for the media. Plus the untold monies that go personally to individuals who will attack Conservative media personnel with any means possible (cough*Al Franken*cough). Is this what the Democratic party has become? I'm sure Thomas Jefferson and FDR would be pleased. These people could be the saints of our time but instead have chosen to become screaming partisan outcasts.
In the past, where were these type of people that would want to remove President Clinton? Or President Carter? Or President Johnson? Or President Kennedy? These were all Democrat Presidents. You don't hear of millionaires during each of these administrations putting their money into groups that would try to remove each President. And the left is always accusing the right of being the extremely rich untaxed people with money to spend. Why weren't they doing the same as Soros and Lewis during past administrations? It makes you wonder about the scruples of these two men and the political left they follow.
I encourage all who read this to boycott Soros Fund Management and Quantum Fund N.V. (of Soros), and The Progressive Insurance Corporation (of Lewis). Any money going to these companies is obviously used in questionable ways by the heads of the companies personally.
More hatred info: In a December 3, 2003 column in The Hill, respected Democratic pollster and strategist Mark Mellman wrote, "Democrats hate George Bush." Mellman went on to quantify the hatred: "The level of animosity Bush arouses in Democrats appears unprecedented. The data are not strictly comparable, but in 1998, 75 percent of Republicans said Bill Clinton made them angry. Bush's father could arouse the ire of only 64 percent of Democrats. Today, Bush enrages nearly 90 percent of Democrats."
John Armor at Chronwatch gives us a look at info from Soros' website:
From Soros' biography on the website of his Open Society Institute: he was born in Budapest in 1930. It notes that he ''survived the Nazi occupation'' and left there in 1947. Curiously, it neglects the fact that he also survived the Communist takeover of Hungary. He graduated from the London School of Economics. In 1956, he moved to the United States and began his very successful career as an investor and market manager.
Because Soros made a comparison, not an exact equation, I quote his precise words used to connect the recent abuse of a dozen Iraqi prisoners to the murder of 2,900 Americans on 9/11. He said, ''The picture of torture in the Abu Ghraib, in Saddam's prison, was the moment of truth for us, because this is not what this nation stands for. I think that those pictures hit us the same way as the--as the terrorist attack itself. Not quite with the same force because the terrorist attack, we were the victims. In the pictures, we were the perpetrators, others were the victim.''
This incredible statement is a small example of Soros' overall philosophy. He laid out his views in the February, 1997, issue of The Atlantic Monthly in an article entitled, ''The Capitalist Threat.'' There, he attacks ''laissez-faire capitalism'' and ''social Darwinism'' and makes the charge that, ''The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.''
Of course, any competent historian should know that laissez-faire capitalism died as a viable concept in the United States seventy years ago. The beginnings of the death of social Darwinism in both the U.S. and England were more than a generation prior to that, when the first laws were passed concerning child labor, public health, and restraint of monopolies of various types.
In this long article, Soros claims that there is no such thing as ''ultimate truth'' in the organization of societies and governments. In short, contrary to all that’s been learned since the fall of the USSR, he advances (without using these words) the ''moral equivalency'' between western ideals and those of other, mostly totalitarian, governments in the world. In short, Soros is a geopolitical moron.
Mind you, no one who has managed to accumulate about seven billion dollars in a single lifetime can possibly be an objective moron. It takes serious intellectual firepower to accomplish that task. But when it comes to the differences between nations, and the uniquely successful history of the United States, Soros is a moron. Like most of his ilk, he has a blind and unjustified faith that the United Nations--a collection of representatives of mostly dictatorships--is better able to lead world affairs than the handful of fully civilized governments, beginning with the United States.
Why has Soros reached this false conclusion? Perhaps he’s cut too many corners and stepped on too many people in his own path to the top, and now seeks to atone for his own misdeeds though his current philanthropy. More than a few American robber barons turned to philanthropy at the end of their careers. More than a few great institutions owe their funding to such late-life spasms of conscience.
Perhaps Soros is one of those: a self-loathing millionaire. In any event, Soros has chosen to put $16 million of his own money into the 2004 election, in part by the new (and legal for the moment because the Federal Election Commission has declined to act) route of the ''527 organization.'' He's chosen four organizations, the best known being Move-On.org; an examination of its primary leaders will turn up more than a few devotees of Fidel Castro, Yassir Arafat, and assorted other modern, government-based murderers.
The simpler explanation is that Soros, like many people of substantial self-made wealth, has fallen in love with his own intellect. He assumes that because he has the wisdom to make great money selling widgets, that he must be wise in all matters including history, society, and politics. America has always had an overabundance of people who succeeded in one area, and therefore thought their ideas in other areas were of equal moment and accuracy. Every reader of this column can make his own not-so-short list of wealthy people who are dumb as a hoe-handle outside their area of expertise. (Hollywood alone can produce a substantial list of such people.)
Be that as it may, Soros is neither the first nor the last man of great wealth to put his money and the power it represents behind ideas that are patently absurd and socially dangerous. While in his article he decries communist dictatorships, he seems not to have learned the lessons that were written in blood in the streets of his own hometown, in the very year that he moved to America--the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.