Wednesday, 21 March 2007


Ken Berwitz

I've talked a number of times about George Soros over the past few months.  I wish there were a way to avoid doing so again but I can't, as you will see.

To refresh your memory, George Soros is a convicted inside trader who has made billions of dollars in financial markets.  At least some, maybe most or all of this money has apparently been accumulated through his shady dealings. 

Putting this aside for a moment, it should also be noted that Mr. Soros has some remarkably hate-filled beliefs about the USA.  Among his quotes:

----"America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany.  We have to go through a certain de-nazification process" (quoted in New Republic magazine);

----"The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat" (February, 1997)

----"The main enemy to a stable and just world order is the United States" (June, 2006).

Now if this leads you to the conclusion that George Soros is a pretty undesirable character, you're doing just fine.  But, unfortunately, Soros isn't just barfing this stuff out to his pals at social gatherings.  He fancies himself a political kingmaker. 

And with attitudes like these, where else would he try to "kingmake" if not the Democratic party?

To this end, Soros has been the most important source of funding behind , a group which claims to "own" the Democratic party, and which has a disquietingly strong basis for their claim. has become a prime force - maybe THE prime force - in Democratic politics.  Why?  Money, that's why.  With the millions upon millions that Soros and other fabulously wealthy Democrats give it, they excercise a huge amount of clout.  (anyone who still believes all the rich people are Republicans is living in a time warp).  

And because Soros combines his cornucopia of money with a lunatic-asylum view of politics, he has become a genuine problem to the Democratic party;  especially to its Jewish segment (inexplicably, most Jews still vote Democratic).   This is because Soros, though ancestrally Jewish, does not seem to have any care at all about Jewish people and appears to hate Israel with a passion. 

Not that this doesn't jibe quite well with a large segment of today's Democratic party.  Research conducted over the past decade shows that they have become a repository for people who do not support Israel, and often have similar feelings about Jews in general. 

Sadly, a great many Jews find ways, torturous as they must be, to ignore this.  But it is very hard to do so when one of the chief haters is also funding the party...and presumably expecting something for his money.  Read this article and you'll see what I mean.


Obama Rebuffs Soros
Billionaire's Comments on Aipac Are Scored

BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 21, 2007

WASHINGTON Leading Democrats, including Senator Obama of Illinois, are distancing themselves from an essay published this week by one of their party's leading financiers that called for the Democratic Party to "liberate" itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.

The article, by George Soros, published in the New York Review of Books, asserts that America should pressure Israel to negotiate with the Hamas-led unity government in the Palestinian territories regardless of whether Hamas recognizes the right of the Jewish state to exist. Mr. Soros goes on to say that one reason America has not embraced this policy is because of the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Yesterday, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign issued a dissent from the Hungarian-born billionaire's assessment. "Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. The U.S. and our allies are right to insist that Hamas a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction meet very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view."

The Soros article puts Democrats in the awkward position of choosing between Mr. Soros, a major funder of their causes, and the pro-Israel lobby, whose members are also active in campaign fund-raising. Pressed by The New York Sun, some Democrats aired their differences with Mr. Soros.

Rep. Robert Wexler, a Democrat of Florida who sent out an e-mail to Jewish supporters in his home state last week vouching for Mr. Obama's pro-Israel bona fides, said he too rejected Mr. Soros's comments. "Senator Obama says until the Palestinian government fulfills all three of the quartet requirements, the United States should not and would not recognize the Palestinian government. Senator Obama is clear, Mr. Soros appears to have a different position," Mr. Wexler said. "I agree with Senator Obama and have felt that way for a long time."

Mr. Wexler also took issue with Mr. Soros's view that Aipac was a major reason why the Bush administration would not recognize the new Palestinian unity government. "I have never met him, he's a very substantial figure in the country," Mr. Wexler said of Mr. Soros. "I think his views are obviously the views of a prominent man. I respectfully disagree with him."

A Democratic congressman from New York who has endorsed Senator Clinton, a Democrat from New York, yesterday was tougher in his assessment of the new Soros article. "He is obviously very self absorbed. I am trying to be kind, but he doesn't leave any room for kindness," Rep. Eliot Engel said in a phone interview Monday.

Regarding Mr. Soros's claim that Aipac drives American foreign policy, Mr. Engel said, "It's a myth and lie about Aipac's supposed stranglehold on the Congress, it's just nonsense. He went on to say, "I don't think Mr. Soros will sway the Democratic Party one iota."
Other prominent Democrats yesterday also differed with Mr. Soros. A vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Susan Turnbull, said in an phone interview, "My view is the problem here is George Bush, Mr. Soros has made that clear and at that point I agree with him. I am not going to say that the problem is Aipac. I don't necessarily agree with him on that." She added, "There are a lot of reasons why we are in the state we are in. I don't think that blaming it on one lobbying organization, which is one aspect of the Jewish community, is the be-all or end-all to the problem. The problem is not with Aipac, but with President Bush."

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, Amaya Smith, declined to comment.

At one point in his essay, in a section discussing how the pro-Israel lobby "has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism," Mr. Soros recalls the fate of Howard Dean's campaign for the presidency. "When Howard Dean called for an evenhanded policy toward Israel in 2004, his chances of getting the nomination were badly damaged (although it was his attempt, after his defeat in Iowa, to shout above the crowd that sealed his fate)," Mr. Soros wrote. Dr. Dean is now chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

The chairman of the Dean campaign, Steve Grossman, yesterday respectfully disagreed. "While Howard's public statements about Israel certainly cost him support in the pro-Israel community, I believe his anti-war positions continued to attract a broad cross section of support from the Jewish community. No one that I know ascribes Howard's defeat in 2004 to his public statements about Israel, even though I'll acknowledge that he lost support among some pro-Israel activists as a result."

Mr. Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and past president of Aipac, said he recognized and respected Mr. Soros' commitment to "progressive American values," and his "investment in political change in America." But Mr. Grossman also said, "I reject out of hand Soros's charges directed toward Aipac."


Did you notice that even the Democrats who DID speak out against Soros softpeddled their comments?  Look at Robert Wexler, for example.  "I think his views are obviously the views of a prominent man.  I respectfully disagree with them"??????  What do you suppose Wexler would have said if Soros wasn't a Mr. Moneybags for the party?  What do you suppose Wexler would have said if Soros were a Republican?  Do you think he'd have said "I think his views are obviously the views of a prominent man.  I respectfully disagree with them"

Eliot Engel at least demonstrated he had a pair of gonads, by directly attacking Soros' hatred.  But then he says it won't sway the Democratic party one iota!!  That is pure political vomit.  OF COURSE it will sway it.  What does Mr. Engel think Soros is forking over tens of millions of dollars for?  So that he WON'T have an influence?  What do you think will happen to the flow of Soros' money if he's ignored?

Then we have Susan Turnbull, who, incredibly, tells us that the problem with a rich Democrat expecting some anti-Israel bang for his buck is.......George Bush.  That is so idiotic that I don't even know where to begin. 

The bottom line here is that Democrats are at a crossroads that they have, so far, convinced themselves to avoid.  They either support Israel, our staunchest ally in the middle east and arguably the world, or they cut Israel loose and leave it to the tender mercies of its Arab neighbors, especially palestinian Arabs, most of whom want Israel vaporized and all its Jews dead.   If they support Israel they risk the loss of all those Soros millions.

Watch very closely and see how far they go to keep Soros' money coming.  Don't expect to like what you see.


Ken Berwitz

Please read Marc Morano's commentary below, then you fill in the title's missing word.  I encourage creativity, but body parts are ok too.-

Al Gore Continues to Demand Special Treatment
March 20, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano 8:08 PM ET Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committees (EPW) hearing rules.

Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesdays (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET.
(See "FULL COMMITTEE: Vice President Al Gores Perspective on Global Warming"

The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.

But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committees 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.

But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill -- the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony even with the new time extension granted to Gore.

As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.

The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gores testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) -- the day of the hearing.

It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.

The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?

Stay tuned

I just watched Chuck "say cheese" Schumer, the senate's publicity-hound extraordinaire, demanding that President Bush's closest advisors testify under oath about the firing of 8 federal prosecutors (which, for the record, was perfectly legal and is being invented into an issue by the unholy alliance of a few serial troublemakers within the Democratic party and an all too willing  mainstream media).  Schumer used the old standby tweak line which, paraphrased, is "if you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you testify under oath".
Now, as I watch Gore deliberately give no advance testimony to the EPW committee in clear violation of its rules, I'm thinking to myself "if you have nothing to hide, why wouldn't you give your testimony in advance".  Is he afraid that someone will have time to research and debunk it?  I'd think that's a pretty fair likelihood.  And mainstream media couldn't care less, as proven by the fact that I would bet the body parts you could add to my blog's title that you haven't seen anything about this from them. 
Al Gore really IS a _______after all these years.  And the media which abet him aren't far behind.
UPDATE:  I just got my New York Times and they feature a front page article, above the fold, about Gore's testimony.  It is titled "Star in New Role, Gore Revisits Old Stage". 
As the title suggests the article is a fawning paean to Al Gore's wonderfulness.  The writers, Mark Lieibovich and Patrick Healy, did everything but recommend him for beatification (maybe that's on the jump page).
I didn't get past page one, in large part because the article contains copy like this: 
----"a heartbreak loser (in 2000) turned Oscar boasting Nobel hopeful globe trotting multimillionaire pop culture eminence", and
----"He will....greet the legion of climate change disciples who swear by the "Goracle" as a contemporary sage". 
There's more, but my stomach isn't what it used to be.
I will now conclude by showing you the entire reportage of Gore's blatant breaking of the rules so that no one can see what his testimony will be:
Have a nice day.
SECOND UPDATE:  Fox news (among others) is now reporting that Al Gore will further disrespect the committee by arriving two hours late for his testimony - which, and here's a real inconvenient truth - will be after the Republican arguments against his "science".
Remember that word you filled into the title?  Change it.  Whatever you have there isn't enough.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!