McCain/Soros by Rabbi Aryeh Spero

"The Republicans lost because they were too conservative." "No, not conservative enough." "They lost because they disappointed the Religious Right." "No, because they are too tied to the Religious Right."

Ever since the passage of McCain/Feingold, money has poured into organizations such as Move on.org demonizing Republicans, painting a portrait of them as the incarnation of evil. The ads have had as their goal one thing: leaving a sour taste in the mouth of the electorate over anything Republican, conservative or religious. It has worked. The soft Republican, like Chaffe, went down with the tough Republican, like Santorum.

These ads, paid for by George Soros, Peter Lewis and other multi-millionaire Leftists are the direct result of, and have been made possible by, the passage of McCain/ Feingold which opened the door to unlimited spending by left wing fat cats in behalf of liberal candidates and causes. Until its passage, contributions were, basically, limited to the political parties and candidates themselves, but with a cap. Until the passage of McCain/Feingold, a cap was placed on how much Soros could underwrite in his lust for power and influence.

Johnny McCain has made it possible for George Soros and other billionaire transnationalists to effect and determine the outcome of our elections and thus U.S. destiny, indeed world destiny. And that is exactly what the wealthy internationalists have always craved.

Certainly, McCain was aware that if the most liberal member of the Senate, Russ Feingold, was pushing a piece of legislation its purpose was not to help conservative causes but the far left ones that are Feingold's life's mission. Indeed, Feingold had a hard time finding a sponsor across the aisle willing to proffer the "bipartisan" aura he needed to gain passage for this liberal dream.

Feingold understood, as we now all do, the Achilles’ heel of Johnny McCain. To wit: I am the "cleaner" and wiser Republican. I stand out from the pack. "Take the dirty money out of politics" became McCain's slogan. He did, and now we have the "clean" money of George Soros and Peter Lewis, so clean that it can be spread around, infinitely, for every left wing cause. It was noble, a Campaign Finance "Reform", so befitting of Mr. Noble.

The President did not veto it. We didn't fight it, assured that it would be overturned by the Courts as "limiting free speech." But, it wasn't overturned. Everyone passed the buck hoping that the next link in the process would stop it.

Democrats since Bill Clinton do one thing: they campaign everyday as if it is the day preceding an election. They demonize Republicans, our motives. The message they telegraph is not so much about our policy but our "sinister" goals. It is Halliburton, profiteering from war, mean-spiritedness, dogmatism over compassion. It is 24/7/365.

The purpose of the ads is not to illuminate their political positions. It is to destroy the Republican candidate and officeholder, the persona of the conservative.Through osmosis -- after a five year daily barrage of ads on radio, TV and in newspapers -- it appears to have worked.

Republicans, on the other hand, don't begin serious campaigning until the month before the election and have never learned the Goebbles technique so familiar, and comfortable, to Democrats :demonize the person, demonize the group. Do so everyday, until respectable people find it offensive to be associated with, let alone vote for, such terrible people. The Moslems are doing it against Israel, against Jews, and they are indeed swaying Europe, prevailing.

The paid- for-by-Soros ads contributed mightily to the Republican defeat. Having won the House and Senate, Democrats can save some money by no longer having to pay for as many ads since they will use their committee positions to demonize and destroy conservatives through Democrat witch hunts under chairmen who have a Torquemada/Inquisition-like intent toward those they are "investigating". Instead of paid ads, the mainstream media will for free, as news, nightly furnish Americans the audios and visuals from the congressional hearings -- the images -- that will make anyone associated with the Republican party look like a thief, greedy, a conspirator --- Al Capone.

Companies that contributed too much to Republican candidates will be hauled in and scrutinized under a series of bogus charges. The public will love it, for the 527/Democrats have spent the last few years laying the demonization groundwork regarding companies such as Exxon, Phillip Morris, Merck, Diebold, Halliburton, Walmart: big oil, big tobbaco, big pharma, giant retailers, etc. If "smart", these companies will mend their ways and learn their lesson regarding who should be the major beneficiary of their contributions. After all, inquisitors simply want and always accept repentance.

So thank you Johnny for your tireless efforts in behalf of McCain/Soros, clean money and motives, and "reform".You have helped bring your party down. Thanks for being the gang leader of the Gang of 14 which stood in the way of up-or-down confirmation of conservative justices. Hats off to you for redefining torture so that effective interrogation of jihadists is forever impossible. As a reward, you wish, now, to lead the party and become its Presidential nominee and standard bearer. I don't think so.

. . . the mainstream media will for free, as news, nightly furnish Americans the audios and visuals from the congressional hearings -- the images -- that will make anyone associated with the Republican party look like a thief, greedy, a conspirator --- Al Capone.

"The mainstream media" is an unnecessary circumlocution - it's Big Journalism, and fellow travelers thereof. Big Journalism consists of a number of corporations, just as Major League Baseball consists of many nominally competitive teams. But MLB baseball is an entity which promotes interest in its games, and just so Big Journalism promotes its talk divorced from action and therefore from consequences and accountability.
Big Journalism is naturally socialist because, since it does nothing but talk, it is best able to gain attention/importance by criticizing people who do things and therefore are vulnerable to the second guess. And socialism is nothing else but criticism and second guessing of those who do significant things. Socialists criticize not only those who provide our food, clothing, shelter, and fuel/transportation, but also those who provide security - notwithstanding the fact that police and the military are an essential part of the government so beloved of socialists.

"Take the dirty money out of politics"

This conceit is offensive because while it condemns the political contributions of non-journalists, it takes for granted that the money Big Journalism spends is pure as the wind-driven snow. There is no justification for that assumption, and there is no justification for the assumption that journalists are objective. The First Amendment doesn't say journalists are objective, it says journalists don't have to be objective.
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic," Theodore Roosevelt, Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

We could also ban 527's from political activity. We should also require that 50% of the money a candidate raises come from within the district they seek to represent.

Very bad idea. We don't need less free speech. That is not the answer.
The 527 "loophole" doesn't just apply to the dhimmi's. The good people can use it too. So let's use it. Let's do it.

We don't need more draconian anti-speech laws. We need to stand up and speak.

The way to understand the First Amendment, and to understand which government policies violate it, is to ask questions about newspaper publishing:

Does money invested in a printing press have to come only from an existing print operation? Can it be illegal for a newspaper to incorporate and sell stock to people who are not journalists? To the contrary, money to be invested in a newspaper can come from a poor man frugally saving his money, or from a shipping tycoon or from a gas station owner.

Does a newspaper have to earn a profit, and does it even have to charge a fee for its product? No, a newspaper can be free, and it can operate at a loss - may become a sinkhole of money for its investor(s), and may finally go bankrupt.
Is a newspaper required by the First Amendment to be objective? To the contrary, the First Amendment means that a newspaper does not have to be objective.

If the government did attempt to require newspapers to be objective, would it be possible for any newspaper to meet that standard? No - for the simple reason that
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
Since nobody ever can know, much less print, the entire truth, it would be impossible to ever prove the negative than any given report was not tendentious in omitting some fact from the report.
If there is no restriction on the source or quantity of money which may found a newspaper, and if requiring newspapers to be objective would be unconstitutional and absurd, by what logic is it possible legally to prevent a newspaper from being associated with a political party, being sponsored by a political party, or even being a political party?
To operate a newspaper is to exercise a constitutional right, and in no sense a duty. I cannot be required to found a newspaper, and I cannot be required to continue to operate a newspaper if once I have founded or otherwise acquired it. I can sell it, to anyone. Including, to the only other newspaper in town. Newspapers are free to collude with each other; it cannot be legally prevented. One newspaper can conspire with another to each assert that the other is objective, without evidence. Newspapers are free.
Newspapers are free. If newspapers have any motive to do so, they can operate in league with each other just as much as two major league baseball teams do - competing within agreed boundaries, and otherwise colluding with each other. They can form a joint operation to share rights to news stories amongst themselves. They can all join one guild. Newspapers are free.
Newspapers are free. If each of them has the same motive to select the same sort of story for front page emphasis, for inclusion in the body of the paper, or for systematic omission from any mention, they all can behave in the same way - and and if the result is that they all exhibit the same political tendency, they can do so without restraint. Newspapers are free.
Newspapers are free. They can compose, or subscribe to an existing,
Code of Ethics which they publish and/or post on their office walls. They can even make an effort to adhere to such, if they choose. Or not. Newspapers are free.
If newspapers are free to do all of the above, and if they have motives to do any or all of the above, there is not the slightest reason to be surprised, or offended, at any evidence (no matter how strong) that they actually do so. In fact, if they have motive as they have opportunity, it is only rational to assume that they will routinely do it. Just as bears are in the woods, and bears have motive to drop excrement - and probably do so there.
The proofs of newspapers' political tendency which Ann Coulter presents in her books - Slander certainly, but also in Treason and Godless - should not surprise us. The only reason it does, is because we have been taken in by a massive propaganda canpaign.
What does that mean in relation to Campaign Finance regulation? It means that all such regulations are unconstitutional. But it also means something else. It means that when broadcasters ape - nay, amplify - The New York Times and other newspapers in order to produce broadcast journalistism which is "in the public interest" appeal to such example is no evidence at all of conformance with the public interest. It may interest the public - and since that is a motive of The New York Times, it probably does - but that is different and often antithetical to the public interest.
Broadcasting exists because of censorship of the many so that the transmissions of the few can be recieved over a broad area. Broadcast Journalism is illegitimate.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

ABC	9,670,000
NBC	7,000,000
CBS	6,310,000
FOXNEWS	3,050,000
CNN	2,963,000
DrudgeReport	2,300,000
MSNBC	1,926,000