You are free to criticize George Soros without being anti-Semitic (Part I)
It seems to me that we were allowed to criticize Bernie Madoff without being called anti-Semitic. And that was the case even though that criticism might dovetail with certain anti-Semitic legends about money and rapaciousness and Jews. But all of a sudden, pointing out the global machinations of George Soros—even things that are in the public domain—is anti-Semitic.
Because Trump, of course.
Criticizing one person from any ethnic or religious group is not criticizing them all. People are individuals, and every group contains bad ones and good ones and everything in-between. This should go without saying, but propagandists are skilled at ignoring it.
Remember when every type of criticism of Obama was called racist? Of course it wasn’t actually racist if you were criticizing his behavior. You were criticizing the man and the president, Barack Obama, not his race.
Same with Soros and being a Jew. With Soros there’s also the fact that, that although he was born a Jew by the Nazis’ definition—in other words, he was born in Hungary to parents of Jewish ancestry—he was never given any instruction in Judaism and his parents had actually repudiated Judaism. They weren’t just non-practicing Jews (although they were indeed that), they were actually anti-Jewish, according to Soros himself, who said that he “grew up in a Jewish, anti-Semitic home,” and called his parents “uncomfortable with their religious roots.”
I want to clear one thing up at the outset, however. There’s a lot of vilification of Soros for what he supposedly did during WWII in Hungary (as a child and young teenager), but the bulk of these accusations don’t appear to be true, or at least they are greatly exaggerated and built on only a small kernel of truth. On the other hand, Soros was mostly protected during World War II and didn’t seem to suffer, by his own admission. Soros himself has described WWII as an exciting period of life for him because his father seemed to have everything under control (Soros managed to masquerade as a non-Jew during this time) and “we managed not only to survive but to emerge victorious…”.
Nevertheless, most of the MSM and all of the left—and Soros is a hero to the left—is loudly proclaiming that attacks on Soros are anti-Semitic (article after article is easy to find, but I’ll just offer this rather typical quote):
“These attacks on Soros are driven largely by his Jewish faith,” [Rep. Adam] Schiff said. “The fact that he’s become a symbol is not an accident.”
“The fact that they’re promulgating this falsehood that he’s funding the caravan is an effort to give rebirth to this blood libel,” Schiff continued.
“His Jewish faith?” Soros has no Jewish faith. And there are many bona fide reasons to dislike Soros. It’s not paranoia or anti-Semitism to believe that he is using some of his vast wealth to fund a great many protests and leftist causes; I don’t think that fact is even hidden, it’s right out in the open. That Jews are sometimes excoriated as activist leftists doesn’t mean that Soros can’t correctly be called exactly that. And of course, because there are vicious ant-Semites out there, those anti-Semites are going to pick up every accusation against Soros and run with it, emphasizing Soros’ Jewishness and making his activities into a Jewish conspiracy.
Does that mean it’s anti-Semitic to criticize the man for what he actually does? It would be ridiculous to say that, but if you wanted to demonize his opponents and protect Soros from criticism, that would be exactly how you would go about it.
[Soros’] name has become a synonym for a well-worn anti-Semitic canard: the idea that Jews are malevolent fomenters of social dissent, agitators slyly funding and masterminding protest, seeking to undermine a white, Christian social order.
No, accusing Soros of being a “formenter of social dissent” and an “agitator funding and masterminding protest” is simply the truth about Soros. If it’s the truth, it’s the truth. Nor do you have to be a white supremacist worried about the “undermining of a white, Christian social order” to worry about a leftist with a ton of money funding leftist activists.
But is Soros “malevolent” and “sly” about it? And does he actually fund the caravan? Tune in tomorrow for my efforts to answer these questions and others.
[Part II here.]
since everyone is going to miss this now:
Artfldgr on October 31, 2018 at 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm said:
Lippmann co-founded The New Republic with Herbert Croly, and Walter Weyl was TNR’s first Editor in Chief. They are connected.
– George Soros
good thing everyone else remains erased…
without help, what could they do?
It’s interesting that the people who want to place Soros beyond criticism are mostly the same people who rage against “big money in politics” in other contexts.
Soros and his father were collaborators. Some people put it floridly and say kapos, but I think that term only applies in re activities in internment camps.
Hungarian law and policy was escalating anti-semitic from 1919 to 1941. All kinds of insults and legal disabilities were written into law. Policy wasn’t murderous, however. The mass deportation of Hungarian Jews only occurred when German troops occupied the country in 1944.
And, the Government of Israel on Soros
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/israel-george-soros-funds-groups-defame-jewish-state
It’s interesting that the people who want to place Soros beyond criticism are mostly the same people who rage against “big money in politics” in other contexts.
See the beefs about Citizens United. Their idea of properly structured campaign finance law is one that prohibits corporate bodies of a Republican bent from participating in public discussion while SEIU and The New York TImes Co. get to say whatever they want.
Compare how the news media handle criticism of Soros and his political operations to how the libertarian Koch brothers are handled.
This “anti-semitism” line about Soros is just to try to shield him from having his extensive political donations pointed out. And he has a right to donate to causes he believes in, as does Tom Steyer, and as do the Kochs.
I look forward to Part ll.
Lo!
Rep. Adam Schiff is a Jew of apparent Jewish faith.
I have become aware of Adam Schiff via his high-profile television presence having to do with the Russia/collusion matter/fiasco. What a lying sleaze!
(My mommy taught me that if you can’t say something nice, don’t say it. The foregoing is about the nicest thing about Schiff that I can manage to muster.)
And now, let’s all wait to see what Manju comes up with. I’m sure it will be positively enlightening.
I read somewhere that an agitator pal of Manuel Zelaya was one of the key promoters of the 1st caravan. You know Zelaya, the former Honduran president ousted by a coupe de tat according to Sec. Hillary Clinton.
To me, the Caravan has Cuba’s fingerprints all over it. However, they are cagey and always operate through it’s network of “fellow traveler” intermediaries. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that Soros has funded it. It’s the sort of thing he dabbles in. With him, I think it is a power thing more than any ideology. He likes to “make history”.
Yes, Soros was a kappo. Listen carefully
https://youtu.be/W8Id0-Lsyr0
Rep. Adam Schiff is a Jew of apparent Jewish faith.
https://stonecoldtruth.com/the-lies-of-adam-schiff/
https://people.com/crime/how-lapd-detective-stephanie-lazarus-murdered-sherri-rasmussen/
Separated at birth???
Althouse tags this sort of thing as “Civility Bullshit”. Criticizing Soros’ actions, behaviors, and spending habits has nothing to do with this ethnicity. Claiming such is a non-sequitur, a simplistic and disingenuous attempt to silence the critic.
Paul in Boston and Art Deco:
Did you follow the link I gave to the words “the bulk of these accusations don’t appear to be true”? At the link, the material about Soros’ supposed collaboration during WWII is dealt with, including that Kroft interview. Please read the whole link—it’s long, and there’s a lot of information in it.
* If you try to find any logic in this sort of reasoning, it actually reveals quite a bit. Daniel Greenfield has an article at FPM in which he digs into it, arguing that the political logic is based on the premise that “anti-semitism” now means “opposition to the left.” He’s correct, but I want to look at it more naively.
There seem prima facie to be two premises at work, one for the right and for the left (as Grrenfield’s analysis suggests). The premise for the right is this:
Criticism of anyone belonging to any demographic category who happens to be on the left necessarily appeals to or resonates with specific tropes of bigotry.
The premise for the left is actually two premises:
First, when a leftist critic of someone on the right intends to address a single individual, he can successfully do so without appealing to tropes of bigotry.
Second, when a leftist critic of someone on the right intends to criticize a group or set of beliefs through an individual, he can do this successfully without appealing to tropes of bigotry.
To summarize in plain English, there is something about right-wingers that makes their minds inherently prone to bigotry, whereas the left is free from this debility and therefore able to use their critical faculties to make appropriate distinctions.
Next step: it is plausible to say that any normally functioning human being is a rational animal, and one of the abilities of a rational animal is to use its rational faculty to make appropriate distinctions. Such being the case, we end up with an implicit argument along these lines:
1) All normally functioning rational animals are capable of using their rational faculty to draw appropriate distinctions;
2) Right-wingers are incapable of using their rational faculty to draw appropriate distinctions;
3) Therefore, right-wingers are not normally functioning rational animals.
I think this conclusion is a fairly good statement of where most leftists sit explicitly in their own minds with respect to their political opponents. They won’t outright say to themselves that
4) Therefore, right-wingers are sub-human
since this would require a host of very unsavory additional premises that would vitiate the leftist’s view of himself as a normally functioning rational animal – premises such as, “All people who are abnormal rational animals and whose abnormality consists in an inhibited potential for rational thought are not proper members of the human family.”
* Now, it must immediately be added that the reasoning displayed in this vicious train of thought is clearly what the psychologists call “motivated,” which is to say, driven by a conclusion one hopes to reach. The tail is wagging the dog, so the question becomes: what is the conclusion they hope to reach?
It is not (3), which is bad enough, but the more outrageous judgment expressed in (4). This is what their behavior and the implicit logic of their argument (such as it is) suggests.
Which means, in turn, that the sub-humanity of their political opponents is in fact their motivating belief and thus their conclusion, inexorably wedded to the unsavory premises they cannot bring themselves to explicitly affirm (this is what I was referring to in a prior comment as their newfangled “race science”).
On the one hand, all of this will sound extravagant to people who pay only passing attention to the partisan circus. On the other hand, anyone not already committed to the tenets of the left who has been stuck in the middle of the circus, whether in academia, some corporation, or simply by paying attention, will recognize the logic in play. It isn’t a paranoid construct. They really think this way.
The logic also spreads to other issues touching on questionably rational animals, giving fuel to the left’s enthusiasm for abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and, increasingly, negative eugenics. The argument to sub-humanity governs their thought.
* We can, in turn, take another step back and wonder why anyone would be motivated to reach such conclusions. There are several plausible suggestions, but one recent theory I find plausible comes from Daniel J. Mahoney’s new book, “The Idol of Our Age.”
Mahoney argues that the modern displacement of God, or what Dietrich von Hildrebrand called “the humble glance upwards,” left our innate need for self-transcendence with nowhere to go but the abstraction of “Humanity.” Once reverence is shifted from true religion to the ersatz religion of Humanity, the notion of dignity falls into our hands – it is up to us to shape it, define it, and give it meaning. Without the mysterious support of the heavens universalizing dignity, contrary to all empirical evidence and to our own libido dominandi, we’re left only with the empirical evidence and self-serving cupidity. Empirically, we’re not equal; selfishly, we presume we belong to the tribe of the equals (more equal than others).
The upshot is that, whatever specific travesty results, it is guaranteed that what will result is some type of ideological deformation of the human situation. This is a lesson we could have learned, and Mahoney did learn, from Aurel Kolnai, who spent decades arguing fruitlessly that the sham universalism of progressive humanist ideology inevitably concludes with tribalism, and is in fact an ally of it. Kolnai’s contemporary Jacob Talmon argued along similar lines in his books “The Universal and the Particular” and “The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.”
Once more, however, these are not easy notions to understand at first glance, as it seems paradoxical, not to say absurd, to claim that the world’s foremost tribalists are self-proclaimed globalists. The paradox evaporates if we recognize that the “universalism” of the humanists was always a tribal universalism, an ideological posit designed to forward the creation of a new and better type of human. In other words, it’s not universalism at all but a pretense, a mere name, flatus vocis.
* But what have we here? Just look at how, of a sudden, my words have gravitated toward the dog whistles – “globalists,” “humans/sub-humans,” “ideological lies,” etc. Jews and goyim. Talmudic conspiracies. The works.
Any leftist could see through my silver-tongued rationalizations in a heartbeat The fact that I would identify George Soros as one of the foremost globalists in the world only clinches the case. What else can a reasonable person expect from a conservative? I’m built to think this way, after all. I may not even know I’m anti-Semitic, but I am. Can’t be helped. Might as well ask the leopard to change his spots.
This is not a space where debate can function, since the primary purpose of the leftist construct is to shut off debate in preparation for other means of addressing The Conservative Question. (There I go again, sub-human that I am, dog whistling for violence.)
The only way to break the deadlock is for a proper universalism – a non-humanistic attribution of innate dignity to all humans – to somehow crawl back into humanistic, progressive thought, which seems to be the same as asking for an end to humanism. Until that day arrives, the party of Humanity will continue to create sub-species of their fellow human beings, and will increasingly behave in accordance with their beliefs.
* Another way to put this is to say that real debate presupposes good faith. In circumstances where neither party is willing to grant this to their opponents, the polity finds itself locked in a dogmatic arms race.
The leftist will see everything I say as a dog whistle and rob me of my bona fides; I will see everything he says as flowing from a demented ideology that views me as sub-human. If I abandon my dogma (dogmas can be rational) and grant my opponent’s good faith, I expose myself to destruction. Granting good faith becomes tantamount to unilateral disarmament. One side is playing the game of reason and peace; the other is playing the game of power and war. It is too dangerous to make moves in the game of Reason when the probability is that your opponent is making moves in the game of Power.
That means that civic trust has gone bye-bye.
Half of society tends to see the other half as being, or being effectively, sub-human apes; the presumed apes see the enlightened ones as being in the grip of an ideological demon, almost literally possessed. The right needs to be killed, enslaved, or subdued; the left needs to be exorcised.
It’s a little hilarious – perhaps *hysterical* is a better word – when you really think about it. Wearing our “They Live” glasses, the leftist sees a chimp when he’s talking to me, and I see Regan from The Exorcist when talking to him (the pea vomit is the words coming from his mouth).
* This has been a long comment, so I should say that it would have been ten times longer if I included all of the qualifications and nuances necessary to drive it home. I am of course exaggerating and treating the extreme cases as normal – a big no-no. On the other hand, these are tendencies I’m referring to, tendencies which obviously exist on a sliding scale. The point of calling attention to the extremes is to indicate where the tendencies are tending, and that is not toward the middle of the scale.
I don’t really know what to say outside of that. I’m aware that I could be viewed as part of the problem, since I fully admit that I lack civic trust as much as any leftist does. I will not grant the good faith of a leftist interlocutor a priori. This has to be earned, and it takes a lot to earn it.
Needless to say, most leftists are not concerned with earning my grant of good faith, nor that of any other conservative. It looks like a case of something broken beyond the point of repair. Who is to blame is almost secondary to the question of what to do about it. I think the left is (on the whole) to blame; the left thinks the right is. Never the twain shall meet. Where do we go from here?
Unilateral disarmament via promiscuous grants of good faith is not an option. Reason is not a suicide pact. Remaining intransigent and ever on-guard, shield up, sarissa aimed forward, marching in the phalanx, is guaranteed to end in tragedy, whether that be in the form of civil divorce or civil war (or both).
I suppose the last best hope we have of breaking out of this no-win situation is the forming of young minds. How the next generation(s) responds to the insanity of political correctness and social justice officiousness will write the story. I want to be cheered by the fact that nations like England managed to get their stuff together after catastrophic civic collapse during the Cromwell era, but even here there was a common underlying Christian culture and legal tradition subsisting through it all. I don’t see that when I look around in America today. though my vision may be distorted by media lenses.
Still, we need to understand not only that leftists are playing with fire – leading more on the right to do so as well – but what is motivating this reckless abandon. The secret alliance between the pseudo-universalism of progressive Humanism and rebarbative tribalism is a good place to start. Visceral disgust with PC/SJW nonsense is necessary for a course correction, but ultimately a larger understanding will be needed to solidify the aversion.
It’s not ant-Semitic to criticize a principal who happens to be Jewish, but not the principle from which a class is derived.
Nicely put, kolnai. In view of what you said about Categories 3 and 4, something that worries me a great deal, and I see indications of it in the Progressive mindset, is that there is not that far of a leap from thinking ” Deplorables”, and ” Lebensunwerte leben”. This how that sort of thing begins. There can be no civility, until Democrats are elected. When Republicans are down, we kick them. Assassination fantasies, beheading the President humorous photos. This is the road the left wants to go down? I find this profoundly disturbing.
“… the last best hope….”
How about all-expenses paid, week-long junkets for ALL U.S. university students to Caracas? Assuming that the airport there is still functional.
(Actually, three days may be enough….)
Funding this will likely be a money-saver in the long run; and maybe even Soros will help finance the project…if one might be able to convince him that a glimpse—a taste—of progressive “paradise” is just the thing that U.S. university students need so as to enthusiastically implement the progressive platform once they get back home (yes, round-trip tickets will be provided, though those who wish to stay there—paradise regained!—will be warmly encouraged…).
Nothing like a little bit of friendly persuasion….
WaPo doesn’t do that. The headline itself makes this clear:
So to earn WaPo’s outrage, your theory must be:
1. False (or unsubstantiated)
2. An Anti-Semitic trope.
You can’t earn their ire on 2 alone. They even provide a list of examples:
Yes, they are accurately claiming that Trump and Co are spewing “well-worn anti-Semitic canards”. But before they make that assessment, they judge the assertions to be false.
They do not cite a single assertion that is proven true.
I mean, Soros’ famous shorting of the British Pound hits all the anti-Semitic tropes being discussed here…and then some.
But it’s not like WaPo said you can’t discuss that. It’s freaking true.
Soros’s funding is normally a step away from the actual group. Many, many protests and groups have been populated by groups which get funding from Soros charities. I haven’t seen any reliable reports on who is funding this migrant caravan. Someone is; they’re being transported in buses, fed, housed in some way as they go. Just as we’re not seeing much effective reporting on who is in the caravan, we’re not seeing much interest in the press in how it’s being accomplished. Soros and his organizations definitely favor opening US borders to all comers, so the theory they’re helping is reasonable. I await evidence.
The WaPo’s headline saying opposition to Soros’s political action is “anti-semitic” is simply nonsense. The actions of the Pittsburgh shooter make it clear he is actually a Jew-hater. Implying that all people who oppose the open borders movement are also motivated by Jew-hating is offensive, stupid, and false. The WaPo should be ashamed of itself.
Kolnai, the time you spent writing your long comment above, and my time spent reading it, were not wasted. Very good.
“Friendly persuasion” revisited:
(Wonder who’s funding this work of staggering political genius…)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6341631/Democrat-supporting-women-strip-photo-shoot-called-Grab-Ballot.html
Barry Meislin:
It is a two-for-one; Halloween and April Fools in a single ad.
People are individuals, and every group contains bad ones and good ones and everything in-between
This is no longer permitted now that we are all engulfed in Identity Politics.
Thank you Neo, I look forward to reading Part II. Kolnai I appreciate the time you took to share your comment. Worthwhile.
People are individuals
no, people are a collective, so you insult my big toe, my brain gets angry cause you insult me..
duh..
perfectly understandable if you switch to a proper framework
otherwise, the decode is gibberish
like trying to cast QED into Algebra…
but its often kind of fun watching the fish flop around on deck trying to understand something created for other terms by their own terms.
completely rediculous.
like answering questions in german i tagalog..
Manju:
Once again, you are either reading-comprehension-challenged or pretending to be.
I gave a quote from the WaPo. The quote is what the word “here” and then a colon refers to. And then I follow it with this comment on the WaPo quote I offered:
It is self-explanatory.
The irony is that Soros described his family as “Jewish anti-Semites.” He wasn’t a Kapo, which is a Jewish ghetto or concentration camp guard, but he was, in his own words (thanks, Paul in Boston), a collaborator. The excuse that somebody else would have done it if he hadn’t is despicable. No, it’s below despicable.
If a non-Jew had taken his actions toward Israel, he would be unquestionably called an anti-Semite.
Implying that all people who oppose the open borders movement are also motivated by Jew-hating is offensive, stupid, and false. The WaPo should be ashamed of itself.
They’re not capable of shame. We live in low, dishonest times. George McGovern is dead, as is Nat Hentoff.
all the anti-Semitic tropes being discussed here…and then some.
There are none. Fraud.
Richard Saunders:
No, he was not a collaborator.
Did you actually read the link I provided? I’ll make it easier for you; here’s part of it:
Neo — So how do you interpret “If I hadn’t done it, someone else would have” in the Kroft interview? Done what? Survived? I don’t think so. One only says that if he has participated in some evil. Those are the classic lines of a collaborator.
Richard Saunders:
It depends what the “it” is, obviously. The “it” has to be something that constitutes collaboration, or the sentence just means that whatever Soros did someone else would have done.
I don’t like Soros or approve of him, but it seems quite clear to me that he did not collaborate. Period. He did almost zero in that direction. Plus, he was fourteen years old and masquerading as a Christian.
It’s a meme that will not die, though. But unless new evidence turns up, I’m not going to be participating in it. There’s enough about him to heartily dislike without having to misrepresent things.
Richard Saunders:
Plus, nearly all survivors compromised in some way to stay alive. Soros’ compromises were miniscule, however.
On a related subject, I also refer you to this piece I wrote about the overuse of the word “kapo.” I don’t believe you used the word that way, but people often do, and some of the points I make there are relevant.
Neo — I specially said he was not a kapo.
Richard Saunders:
Yes, I said I didn’t think you used the word that way.
However, I put the link to the article there because other people use it that way, but mainly because it talks at some length about the idea of judging people as guilty who, during the war and under great threat, cooperated to some extent or other with the Nazi enemy.
Art Deco on October 31, 2018 at 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm said:
It’s interesting that the people who want to place Soros beyond criticism are mostly the same people who rage against “big money in politics” in other contexts.
See the beefs about Citizens United. Their idea of properly structured campaign finance law is one that prohibits corporate bodies of a Republican bent from participating in public discussion while SEIU and The New York TImes Co. get to say whatever they want.
* * *
“If the Left didn’t have double standards….”
See this on why Mr. Trump is so invaluable as President.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-and-his-supporters-are-destroying-the-democrats-ability-to-enforce-double-standards_2703307.html
“Alinsky’s fourth rule for radicals is “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” The flip side of that, of course, is that the radicals don’t have to live up to any rules at all. This way you can constantly keep the other side on the defensive.
That’s why you see progressive leftists in politics, in the news media, or in academia pull this amazing trick over and over, constantly forcing their political opponents to live up to cultural and social and legal rules that they themselves ignore. It took Trump to show the GOP and conservatives how to turn this tactic back on people who make constant use of it.
“We can say this kind of stuff, but you people can’t!” only works if you are the sort of person who the usual politically correct browbeating can force into submission. Leftists have spent the past three years slowly ramping up this tactic against Trump, and failing miserably with it because Trump simply refuses to respond as he is supposed to. The president refuses to be browbeaten into anything, especially by the “fake news media.”
Instead of apologizing, retreating, or being defensive, Trump constantly goes on the attack, turning the tables on his accusers. And it’s not just Trump. Plenty of Americans are waking up to the fact that they can challenge these entrenched double standards and force the left to do the retreating.
Here’s just one example: The Tree of Life synagogue mass murderer in Pittsburgh posted vile anti-Semitic messages on the Gab social-media platform. Tech companies such as PayPal and the services hosting the website reacted by withdrawing all their services, essentially taking Gab out of existence. And there was much backslapping and high-fiving throughout the land, because, of course, anti-Semitism can’t be allowed on a social-media platform, right?
Well, as it so happens, Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam, has been posting anti-Semitic messages on Twitter for years. Trump’s supporters have noticed, and are calling for the same tech companies that de-platformed Gab to live up to their own rules by de-platforming Twitter.
The Alinsky disciples of the left aren’t used to having their own attacks flipped around on them. “Well, you said you don’t like anti-Semitism and that no social-media platform can excuse posting such messages … so when are you taking action against Twitter for leaving all of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic posts up?” one might ask.
With Trump leading the way, the left is being robbed of one of its most potent weapons: the ability to enforce politically correct double standards. That’s the main reason that Democrats and their media allies have gone all in on these absurd “dog whistling” claims. Trump is expertly flipping all their attacks back on them and they have no answers.”
They also are not axing the Democrats, because they have no intention of living up to the rules they impose on the other party.
However, Gay Patriot, after being banned from social media, is fighting back.
The second link is to an especially egregious case of media double-standards, via Ace.
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-the-medias-skeletons
“Today’s mainstream media journalists have become nothing more than left-wing extremist activists. They routinely lie to the American public and savor the personal destruction of conservatives.
It’s time to fight back.
I am raising money to hire a private investigation firm to fully investigate the backgrounds of members of our news media. ”
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/377889.php
“November 01, 2018
USA Today “Investigative Reporter” Doxes Twitter User for Spreading News He Doesn’t Like
Enemies of the people.
You know, there’s always talk about funding a media-hunting Investigative unit that will dig up their arrest records, drug addictions, sexual affairs, and gay dalliances.
I think that is going to soon move from mere talk to a funded operation.
This can’t keep going on. They cannot be permitted to continue hunting law-abiding citizens with impunity. They must be on the receiving end of their own scalp-hunting tactics.”
I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Adam Schiff owes whatever political fortunes he has to sharing his name with the beloved fictional District Attorney from the Law & Order television series.
@ Manju – “One of the two protesters who confronted Flake in the elevator is Ana Maria Archila, an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). The other protester, Maria Gallagher, is an activist with the group. The CPD is indeed heavily funded by George Soros through the Open Society Foundation.”
Soros, or Soros funded organizations were reportedly leafletting and broadcasting in Syria in 2015, urging people to flee to Europe, the beginning of the “million migrant march” that destabilized the EU, with the help of Angela Merkel. Not encouraging flight to any nearby Arab nations, but to the EU.
It seems odd to call criticism of Soros anti-semitism when he is not in any respect a religious or practicing Jew – I think he calls himself an atheist.