On "Shadowy Billionaires," Conspiracy Theories, and Lies

Conservatives' over-the-top attacks on George Soros Mirror Progressives' attacks on the Koch Brothers During the Obama Administration

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

A lot of attention has been paid recently to the role George Soros plays as a bogeyman for conservatives. Soros is seen as a malevolent force with massive influence on progressive politics, and gets blamed for things, like the migrant caravan, that there is little to no evidence he has anything to do with. President Trump hasn't exactly discouraged conspiracy theories about Soros, and Soros has been the subject of wild distortions and out-and-out lies about his past in Nazi-occupied Hungary.

Soros is Jewish, and many have argued that his status as the center of right-wing conspiracy theories is largely a result of anti-Semitism. I certainly can't rule out anti-Semitism as a factor, though it's worth noting that of the top six Democratic/liberal donors these days five including are Jews, and the sixth, Tom Steyer, is an Episcopalean with a Jewish father. So if you're going to demonize "big money" on the left, your non-Jewish options are limited. (The largest Republican donor, Sheldon Adelson, is also Jewish, as are many other major Republican donors, though not to the same extent as for the Democrats.)

The point I want to make here though is that regardless of wheher and to what extent anti-Semitism is a factor in "right-wing" criticism of Soros, ant-Semitism s hardly necessary for conspiracy theories and fabrications about major political donors. In fact, progressive attacks on the Koch Brothers during the Obama Adminsitration also involved lies, conspiracy theories, and the even-more-direct involvement of the White House. If the Koch Brothers were Jewish, the attacks on them (just for example, alleging that their dad was a stooge of the USSR in the 1930s, or that they are "unAmerican" as Harry Reid stated) would sound awfully anti-Semitic.

I think conservatives should stop the exaggerated attacks on Soros even if they are not anti-Semitic, not because they are somehow unique, but because they are "fake news" that just adds to the general current low tone of American politics, just like I objected to and continue to criticize crazy attacks on the Kochs.

My progressive friends consistently deny that the attacks on the Kochs even remotely resemble the vitriol and prevarication about Soros. I discussed the attack on the Kochs in my book Lawless, and reprint the relevant section so you can draw your own conclusions (with some emphasis added):

While denouncing Citizens United in August 2010, President Obama libeled Americans for Prosperity, a pro–free market organization founded by the billionaire libertarian Koch (pronounced "Coke") brothers, Charles and David, owners of Koch Industries, the second-largest privately held company in the United States. Obama said, "Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corpo-ration." As President Obama well knew, Americans for Prosperity is not a foreign-controlled corporation.

In September, Obama senior advisor David Axelrod declared outright, and in an outright lie, that the "benign-sounding Americans for Prosperity, the American Crossroads fund" are "front groups for foreign-controlled companies." That tactic never got any traction. Even liberal-leaning news organizations pointed out both that Citizens United did not involve foreign corporations, and that it was absurd to allege that American conservative groups were fronts for such corporations.

The Democratic establishment decided that if they were unable to stifle conservative donors through campaign finance legislation, they would do it through other means. Leading Democrats, including the president himself, embarked on an extraordinary, wide-ranging campaign to demonize the Koch brothers. ….

They figured mysterious (because generally adverse to publicity), ominous-sounding (billionaires! involved in the oil industry!) villains on whom to blame their troubles and rouse the passions of their partisans would be useful. Ironically, the Kochs, rightly feeling they had been unfairly attacked, increased their political spending dramatically.

The war on the Kochs started with a hit piece in the New Yorker in August 2010 by Jane Mayer.This was not a purely spontaneous journalistic endeavor by Mayer, but one in part plotted and supported by the very sort of big money politicos Mayer was supposedly exposing. A substantial amount of her research was provided by Lee Fang of ThinkProgress, a Beltway institution with very close ties to the Obama White House and the Democratic establishment. While accusing the Kochs of hiding their activism by "creating slippery organizations with generic-sounding names," Mayer favorably cited slippery left-wing organizations with generic-sounding names that were out to get the Kochs for political reasons, including the Center for Public Integrity, Media Matters, and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy….

A few weeks after Mayer's article appeared, Austan Goolsbee, the president's economic advisor, told conference-call participants that "in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses . . ." Goolsbee said that he thought that Koch Industries was a "pass-through entity," information that he could only have received from the Internal Revenue Service.

IRS disclosure of such information is illegal. The Obama administration, after first falsely suggesting that Goolsbee was relying on publicly available information, later claimed that he had misspoken, and had merely used the Kochs as an inaccurate example of a broader problem. Several years later, Goolsbee claimed that he mistakenly relied on a seven-year-old article about the Kochs' third brother, who has no stake in Koch Indus-tries. Making matters worse, according to Koch Industries' attorney the company does in fact pay income taxes, so whatever information Goolsbee thought he was relying on was false or incomplete. Under congressional pressure, the administration ultimately agreed to conduct an internal investigation into Goolsbee's comment, but it refused to release the results.

The Goolsbee incident taught the Obama administration that it was too risky for it to go after the Kochs directly and have the administration involved in false or exaggerated mudslinging against private citizens. Other parts of the Democratic machine instead took the lead. In September 2010, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee claimed on its website that the Kochs have "funneled their money into right-wing shadow groups." A week later, Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, falsely accused Koch Industries of "outsourcing" and claimed that "they actually got an award for 'outsourcing' to China."

Meanwhile, the Obama administration was quietly encouraging a media blitz against the Kochs. The Huffington Post reported that a senior administration official, speaking to a gathering of reporters, urged them to attack the Kochs….

The Kochs have become the Emmanuel Goldsteins of the Obama administration. Since Mayer's piece came out, they've been blamed for everything from global warming to public school segregation to the proposed Keystone pipeline to Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of George Zimmerman to voter ID laws to the battles between the state government and municipal unions in Wisconsin. The underlying accusations were at best exaggerated, and more often were completely false.

The Obama administration was sometimes directly complicit in the attacks on the Kochs. For example, in early 2011 the White House sent Obama for America political operatives to Wisconsin to try to insert the Kochs into media coverage of state political battles. The president's reelection campaign several times mailed fundraising letters attacking the Kochs, in one case depicting them as "plotting oil men" who are bent on "misleading people" with "disinformation" to "smear the President's record." On April 13, 2011, Lee Fang published an article at ThinkProgress falsely accusing the Kochs of illegally manipulating oil and gas prices. By remarkable coincidence (not!), the Obama administration was forming a task force on fraud and manipulation in the gas market at exactly the same time; the task force was formally announced on April 21. Less directly, President Obama, as the head of the Democratic Party, could have ordered the party apparatus to call off its attack dogs. Instead, throughout the 2012 election campaign various Democratic fundraising committees used the Kochs as fundraising bait.

The most egregious and persistent attacks on the Koch brothers came from then–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. Beginning in early 2014, he launched almost daily (and often factually inaccurate) verbal assaults on the Kochs, and also established a website dedicated to the Kochs' purported misdeeds. To get an idea of the tenor of the site, a page headlined "meet the Kochs" introduces them as "producers of toxic chemicals, harmful pollutants, carcinogens, greenhouse gases." Among other insults, Reid called the brothers "un-American" and "power-hungry tycoons." He mentioned them in Senate speeches well over one hundred times. When Texas Republican Ted Cruz accused Reid of launching "an unprecedented slander campaign against two private citizens," Reid spokesman Alan Jentleson retorted that Cruz was "rushing to the defense of shadowy billionaires who are rigging our democracy to benefit the wealthy and powerful."

NEXT: 'We Are as Gods and Might as Well Get Good at It'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While there is indeed some overlap in the BS spread about both groups, the Soros as octopus and Soros-occupied State Department and the like is straight out of the antisemitic playbook in a way the crap spread about the Koch’s is not.

    Also, of course, Soros is actually Jewish.

    1. If the Koch Brothers were Jewish, the attacks on them (just for example, alleging that their dad was a stooge of the USSR in the 1930s, or that they are “unAmerican” as Harry Reid stated) would sound awfully anti-Semitic.

      That’s a pretty weak attempt compared to, say, this.

        1. Is Kochtopus ok, but comparing Soros to an octopus not ok?

          asking for a friend.

          1. ‘and why can they say the N word and I can’t?

            And why is blackface bad, but whiteface is not?’

            Come on, man, this is like race relations 101.

            1. “man”

              assuming my gender?

            2. Also calling me ignorant shows your anti-Scot bias.

              1. I think dunce would be a better anti-Scot slur.

          2. Sarcastro and Bernard are in high dudgeon and even though that was funny it wasn’t funny. Wasn’t funny at all.

    2. As TFA article says, you have to distinguish better. Not all attacks on Jews are anti-semitic. Pretending it is so doesn’t make it so.

      1. I absolutely agree. Just like not all attacks on Obama were racist.
        But the attacks on Soros sure as hell do use antisemetic tropes. A lot. So, in this case, it’s not looking too good.

        1. Not all attacks on rich people are antisemitic either.

          I think it says more about the people that hear criticism of a rich person and think it’s criticism of Jewish people than it does about the critics.

        2. And yet you can’t solidify the tropes… odd that. Unless you think all Jews are rich and are imparting your own anti-semetic whistles into the conversation.

          1. Octopus ain’t enough for you? Globalist banker isn’t enough? Funny, it’s like you don’t read all the way through my comments before you post.

            1. Interesting that you are so well versed in anti-Semetic dog whistles. Perhaps, if you can hear the dog whistles so clearly, you just might be a dog.

              1. What does that say about people blowing the whistles?

        3. But the trope against the Kochs was almost identical, shadowy billionaires pulling the strings from the shadows.

          And take the criticism of Hungary for their “anti-Semitic” attacks on Soros, because they resent a foreign funded university from trying to influence Hungarian politics and institutions.

          Its seems to me that trying to characterize all criticism of Soros as anti-Semitic is as dishonest as blaming Trump for the Pittsburgh shooting.

          To be sure there has been some anti-Semitic attacks on Soros, such as from Mahathir in Malaysia, but that is nothing to do with the domestic criticism.

          I think the attempt to paint the criticism of Soros as anti-Semitic is just part and parcel of the worn out progressive strategy of trying to paint everything the Republicans say or do as racist in some fashion.

          Call it the ‘They’ll put you all back in chains’ strategy, it’s not working.

          1. You’re taking Orban’s side? Really?

            Do you celebrate Dmowski’s birthday?

          2. “Its seems to me that trying to characterize all criticism of Soros as anti-Semitic is as dishonest as blaming Trump for the Pittsburgh shooting.”

            Now if you can just find some non-strawmen to hold these strawman positions, you’ll be all set.

        4. Right… I wonder why Soros is wanted by several countries, primarily based on his actions. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of a good meme!

          1. Weird how none of the memes talk about short-selling currency so much as they talk about a shadowy controller of American politics.

    3. This is quite another thing than alleging that their dad was a stooge of the USSR in the 1930s, or that they are “unAmerican”

      1. Sarcastr0, the link didn’t work.

    4. There’s no doubt that *some* attacks on Soros are anti-Semitic in intent or origin (so are some on Adelson, sometimes from left-wing Jews). Normally, I’d say that since that’s the case, why not use someone else. But if you attack the most common someone else’s, say Bloomberg or Steyer (who this year are the biggest donors to the left), you also get accused of anti-Semitism. So perhaps it’s better just to point out that this sort of demonization and conspiratorial thinking it stupid and damaging regardless.

      1. I think we need to differentiate here.

        Attacking Soros because he is a rich progressive who donates massively to attempt to sway Democratic elections doesn’t require he be Jewish (and is besides the point). It’s because he’s a rich progressive donating massively to sway elections.

        Remember Soros infamously donated over 23 million US dollars in 2003-2004 to defeat George W. Bush. Notably, this was before Citizens United.

        As for the caravan, it’s not a stretch to believe Soros is funding at least some support for it, in some way. He donates to a LOT of progressive causes. And somehow the caravan is attempting to sue the United States. I do have to wonder, who is funding those lawyers for the caravan.

        1. SCOTUS held in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo that the first amendment prohibited monetary caps on independent expenditures by individuals, so Soros, Adelson, the Kochs, and all of us have been free since 1976 to spend our private fortunes to elect the candidates of our choice so long as we don’t coordinate with the candidates. Citizens United, and its offspring Speechnow.org v. FEC merely facilitated the funneling of those expenditures through nominally independent PACs rather than through direct ad buys by the individuals, introducing a new level of efficiency into the process. But individuals have always been free since 1976 to spend as they see fit.

        2. As for the caravan, it’s not a stretch to believe Soros is funding at least some support for it, in some way. He donates to a LOT of progressive causes.

          Not antisemitic, but still pretty dumb. Propensity evidence isn’t evidence, it’s just a narrative you’re trying to pretend is evidence. Speculate less.

          1. Prior bad acts should not be admitted in court either. I have had issues with what some consider priors as relevant, but have lost on a number of cases. Just isn’t fair sometimes.

          2. I think it’s legit to speculate that Soros is funding the Caravan. He’s got at least as as much evidence to float that speculation as Harry Reid had to unequivocally state that Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years.

            1. Did you think what Reid did was cool? If you didn’t like that, you shouldn’t approve of this.

          3. If you need evidence that Soros is funding support of the caravan….

            1. AFSC is actively supporting the caravan.

            2. AFSC is funded, in part, by the Open Society Foundation

            3. The Open Society Foundation is founded by Soros.

            That’s just public knowledge. Not a conspiracy.

            I’d drop links in, but the comments don’t support it. So, Google “support the migrant caravan” and see who pops up. Then google the NGO monitor for AFSC.

            1. “That’s just public knowledge.”

              It might be public knowledge amongst people who are obsessed with Mr. Soros.

            2. That’s some cork-board tin foil Kevin Bacon fun times. If nothing else, that straw-grasping shows how Soros has zero hand in the caravan’s existence, if you’re going to have to use fungible money.

              By that definition every time I fuel my car I’m actively funding Saudi Arabia.

        3. it’s not a stretch to believe Soros is funding at least some support for it, in some way.

          Oh, bullshit.

          1. But he’s one of THEM. Assuming he’s behind everything WE don’t like is no stretch!

      2. David, as you know, it’s perfectly acceptible to criticize public figures like Soros, Yellen, Blankfein, Steyer and Bloomberg. As you also know, it can quite easily be accomplished without invoking age-old anti-Semitic tropes. But apparently it wasn’t easy enough for the Trump Campaign or GOP House Leader McCarthy, among others.

        That’s what distinguishes the attacks on the Koch’s from those on Soros et al.

        1. Yes, I see that Mr. McCarthy has invoked the age-old anti-Semitic trope of mentioning the three most prominent billionaire donors to the opposing cause in a single sentence. I can hear the dog whistle from here. Hopefully if he becomes House Minority Leader he will not criticize his Senate counterpart by name at any point; we all know what that is code for.

          1. Only 2 of whom are, in fact, Jewish, and only one of whom has a recognizably Jewish-sounding last name.

            1. Only 2 of whom are, in fact, Jewish, and only one of whom has a recognizably Jewish-sounding last name.

              Oh come on, David. This is disingenuous. “Bloomberg” of course is the recognizable name, but it’s extremely widely known that Soros is Jewish.

            2. Give me a break, David.

              Do you seriously think people who hear anti-Semitic dog-whistles would say, “Well, 2 out of the 3 mentioned are Jews, and the third has a Jewish father, but halakhically he isn’t Jewish without a Jewish mother, so I’m sure that tweet had nothing to do with Jews”?

              1. Of the relatively small % of Americans who’ve heard of Steyer, I doubt 1 in 25 know he’s of Jewish origins. I certainly didn’t until Republicans were accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing him, and I’m pretty up on such things. He’s a practicing Christian and “Steyer” doesn’t sound Jewish. If you wanted a dog whistle, you use someone who is recognizably Jewish. And Steyer, Bloomberg, and Soros are literally the 3 biggest donors to Democratic causes, so they are the natural ones to criticize.

                1. OTOH, if McCarthy had picked out, say, donors number 8, 15, and 22, and they all happened to have jewish origins, and there was no obvious reason they were picked otherwise…

                2. If you doubt Steyer is considered Jewish by audiences attuned to anti-Semitic dog whistles, check your interwebs. In about 90 seconds on Google I saw mentions of his Judaism on Stormfront, Daily Stormer, and some consperiatorial RW sites I’m unfamiliar with.

                  As I said, there’s nothing anti-Semitic per se about going after Soros, Bloomberg and Steyer. But doing so without making the minimal effort to avoid invoking notorious anti-Semitic tropes, especially in an environment where the President’s own campaign has disseminated messages straight out of the Protocols, is at best indifferent to anti-Semitism.

                  If the McCarthy tweet wasn’t offensive, why did he delete it?

      3. Prof. Bernstein – It is stupid and damaging regardless.

        But in Soros’ case it keeps stumbling over very particular tropes. Same as the Rothschilds.

        It goes well beyond ‘you’re a Russian tool’ and not calling it out when you see it – or working hard not to see it – is not going to go well in the long-run, regardless of how fares more general demonizing via fake news on the right and left.

      4. *some* attacks on Soros are anti-Semitic in intent or origin

        I’d say attacks that feature a wealthy Jew financing shadowy conspiracies are pretty damn anti-Semitic. Even if the attacker doesn’t intend that, they still stoke anti-Semitism.

        Do you disagree?

        1. Yes, I disagree. If it’s pretty much the same criticism that was piled on 2 German-Americans financing shadowy conspiracies against progressive causes.

          You’ve utterly failed to differentiate the criticism of Soros and the Kochs. It can’t be that Soros is immune because he’s Jewish, but the Kochs are fair game because they aren’t.

          1. I don’t see the criticism of the Koch’s as relying on anti-German themes. Maybe someone somewhere has depicted them wearing swastikas or something, but I haven’t seen it.

        2. George Soros is, in fact, a wealthy Jewish financier. Therefore, apparently, any attacks on him are by their very nature “pretty damn anti-Semitic,” even if they do absolutely nothing to draw attention to his ethnicity whatsoever. I’ll spread word of the new rules. Given that his shadowiest conspiracies have been against the Jewish people themselves, this should get interesting.

          Most Jews I grew up around qualified for food stamps. But some idiots still thought they were all somehow nefarious financiers. George Soros is a nefarious financier–but apparently because he happens to be Jewish, he gets to nefariously finance all over the place without a word of mention, because to do so would be horribly anti-Semitic. Funny I thought anti-Semitism was about lies, not truths. And I guess I’ll go rob some folks now, since to make something of my actions would be to engage in some pretty ugly stereotypes about Puerto Ricans. Such are the perks of being a minority, apparently; we have earned that shield dammit!

          As for the nebulous charge of “stoking” some idiotic reaction–“even if the attacker doesn’t intend” something, let alone say it–I’d agree there’s a very very wide chasm opening up between those who intend for society to routinely traffic in such generously construed ascriptions of responsibility, and those who do not.

          1. Therefore, apparently

            No one is arguing that strawman you just set up, but I hope you had fun knocking him down.

            1. Yes–says the gentleman who (like the one I was replying to) has filled this thread with such careful, scrupulously delimited assertions as

              [T]he attacks on Soros sure as hell do use antisemetic [sic] tropes. A lot.

              without providing any evidence of the use of such “tropes” by Soros opponents of remotely any mainstream prominence.

              1. Oh, and incidentally, “pretty damn anti-Semitic” was in fact a direct quote (as the inverted commas might indicate) from Mr. 11. More precisely, the assertion was, “I’d say attacks that feature a wealthy Jew financing shadowy conspiracies are pretty damn anti-Semitic.” That–like the part afterward about “stoking”–came from him, not my own devising, despite your efforts to quote two words out of context to make me sound speculative. If there was a problem with my subsequent argument against 11’s point of view, it has nothing to do with strawmanning.

              2. OK Diego, whoever the fuck you are. I can see that you don’t like Mr. Soros very much.

                Maybe you can tell what his “nefarious” activities are. Funding that caravan that Trump is despicably equating to Genghis Khan’s army? Paying anti-Trump protesters, or Kavanaugh’s opponent’s, as Trump (is he prominent enough?) claims?

                What?

                1. Nefarious activities like breaking the Bank of England and costing millions of people billions of pounds. Not to mentioned his firm’s involvement in other currency-exchange-attacks, like the ones that caused a financial crisis in Indonesia.

                  And, oh yes, being convicted of insider trading by France.

                  1. Breaking the Bank of England?

                    Not exactly. You don’t know much about currencies and exchange rates, do you? The British government locked itself into an exchange mechanism that required it, at the time, to maintain the pound at what amounted to an unsustainably high value. Soros recognized that, shorted the pound massively, and profited massively when the pound fell. No one with a respect for free markets should criticize him for doing that. Criticize John Major instead for a foolish and unsustainable policy.

                    Insider trading? Yeah. He was convicted. Sixteen years ago. He had to pay back $2.2 million. Not a back-breaking sum for him, but still. Maybe he did it.

                    But what does any of that have to with his political activities? He donates money to causes he supports. That right-wingers don’t like those causes – imagine trying to promote democracy in Eastern Europe! Disgraceful! – doesn’t make his activities nefarious or evil.

                    Oh. and unlike the Koch’s, he doesn’t spend money promoting lies that are in his financial interest.

                2. In 2016 Soros wrote, himself evidently, an oped in the WSJ saying that he had earmarked 500m for activities like, well, the caravan:

                  I have decided to earmark $500 million for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities,” Soros wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “I will invest in startups, established companies, social-impact initiatives and businesses founded by migrants and refugees themselves. Although my main concern is to help migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, I will be looking for good investment ideas that will benefit migrants all over the world.”

                  1. Wow, this is weak.

                  2. Sounds good to me, Kazinski.

                    Going to help migrants get started being productive in their new countries. WTF is wrong with that?

    5. I’m curious where this “antisemitic playbook” is. Do you have a copy? How, precisely, do you decide that criticism A of Soros must be antisemitic but nearly identical criticism B of the Koch brothers was not?

      1. Since the Koch’s are not Jewish it’s pretty easy to say that criticism of them, with maybe some lunatic exceptions, are not anti-Semitic.

        As for Soros, if you want to criticize the causes he supports, that’s acceptable. If you criticize him as the financial mastermind of some sort of nefarious conspiracy you are using very common anti-Semitic themes.

        Now, it may be that some who do that are unaware of that history, but a lot of those who see it are inclined to accept that “the Jews” are up to all sorts of evil trickery, so even they are, albeit inadvertently, stoking the flames. It may also be that those who use these images, while imagining that they are not personally anti-Semitic, are glad to stoke them to their advantage.

        1. or maybe we can dispose of the whole guilty until proven innocent mo of identity politics since certain groups/liberals like to use it to hamper criticism of their idols. As wrong as it is to dislike someone simply because of their ethnicity it is also wrong to try to set up racist shields that make someone inherently more difficult to criticize simply because of their ethnicity.

          1. There is a difference, Amos, between criticizing the causes someone supports and using nasty ethnic stereotypes to criticize them personally.

            There is also the matter of lying while invoking those same stereotypes. Soros is funding a caravan of ISIS thugs coming north? No. They aren’t ISIS thugs (I’m surprised some hater at the RNC hasn’t dummied up images of the caravan riding camels) and Soros isn’t funding them, no matter what Trump says.

            1. One is stereotyping while the other is stereotyping and also antintellectualism. Don’t do this don’t think this not because it is logically wrong but because it might lead to badthoughttm.

            2. You still haven’t explained why criticism of someone as “the financial mastermind of some sort of nefarious conspiracy” is perfectly acceptable criticism when leveled against the Koch brothers but somehow transforms into prohibited anti-semitism when leveled against Soros.

              The closest you’re coming to an argument is that “bad people used a similar argument for anti-semitic reasons in the past, therefore that argument can never be used against any Jew in the future” regardless of whether or not it is true, sincerely held or offered for other non-anti-semitic reasons. That’s a bad argument. Prejudice is wrong whichever direction it’s made.

              1. “The closest you’re coming to an argument is that ‘bad people used a similar argument for anti-semitic reasons in the past'”

                Maybe in some way, that’s similar to the fact that you can’t use a swastika for anything without expecting to have to explain why you’re not a Nazi-sympathizer, whether you are a Nazi-sympathizer or not, or you can’t drive around town in an unmarked white van offering candy and rides to young children.

                The “appearance makes reality” of some imagery means that using that imagery will push towards one interpretation, even if that isn’t the one that is true, or intended.

              2. It’s not acceptable because it’s false in both cases.

                It’s extra bad regarding Soros because the methods used to communicate his shadowy control stumble into old tropes of Jewish Bankers way more than is coincidence. Stumbling into previous bigoted arguments is bad enough, but the nose, the puppet, the octopus…that’s not stumbling, that’s invoking. And Prof. Bernstein minimizing that aspect is a helluva thing.

          2. Yea! And another thing, if he killed christ, why can’t we say that????

            1. Because you make it sound like he did it personally.

              All he did was pay other people (probably Guatemalan) to carry out the execution.

        2. “If you criticize him as the financial mastermind of some sort of nefarious conspiracy you are using very common anti-Semitic themes.”

          So if an anti-Semite uses a theme, there’s some sort of rule of good behavior that nobody else can use the theme, even if it is correct?

          Of course, using a theme that is explicitly anti-Semitic is anti-Semitic behavior. But what if Soros is behind a conspiracy, are we not allowed to say so because anti-Semites say the same thing?

          That would be pretty poor logic, which leads me to conclude that this sort of argument is either a result of faulty thinking, or dishonest.

    6. You’re such an idiot Sarcastro. Very few of the comments made in regard to soros are semetic in nature, and if you were honest you’d admit that. It’s the same vitriol as that which is thrown at Steyer, the Clintons, Hollywood stars, etc. But you are such a dishonest person that you can’t admit that.

      1. Is anyone who disagrees with you not a lying idiot?

        1. Just the opposite, in fact.

    7. You’re such an idiot Sarcastro. Very few of the comments made in regard to soros are semetic in nature, and if you were honest you’d admit that. It’s the same vitriol as that which is thrown at Steyer, the Clintons, Hollywood stars, etc. But you are such a dishonest person that you can’t admit that.

      1. ” Very few of the comments made in regard to soros are semetic in nature”

        So you concede that some of them are?

      2. You’re such an idiot Sarcastro. Very few of the comments made in regard to soros are semetic in nature, and if you were honest you’d admit that

        I provided evidence; you just begged the question with zero support. I’m pretty comfortable with arguing from examples versus your empty vehemence.

        1. “Provided evidence” has a new definition apparently “arguing from examples”. Sarcastr0 seems to think making bald assertions is now the same thing as providing evidence. All aboard the “everything I agree with is fact” express.

          1. The OP argues from examples, as do I. That’s the quantum of evidence in this arena.

            Jesse argues from yelling.

            You argue from not reading the OP, I guess.

    8. If Soros was a Martian and did what he did people would be saying the same thing. And the left hates Jews as much as the far right. IMO the only difference between the two groups is that Jews, at least the powerful and influential ones demographically overwhelmingly favors the former.

      1. Your counterfactual is just you saying ‘nuh-uh.’ And then you enjoy some whattaboutism. Lame.

        1. You cant use the l-word, it shows bias against the differently abled.

          And don’t point out the orange one uses it, that is just whattaboutism.

          1. Props for using whattaboutism correctly.

            Love your babby’s first political correctness, and you actually have the satire pretty well down from what I see. But these things come in waves, and whatever sociological impetus it is hasn’t gotten to ‘lame’ yet.

            Anyhow, I tune my vocab for my audience. e.g. I use ‘illegal’ which I certainly would not use elsewhere. If someone sincerely claims offence, I’ll back off.

        2. It’s weirder than that. He admits that the right has anti-semites while simultaneously rejecting that the right has anti-semites.

      2. If Soros was a Martian and did what he did people would be saying the same thing.

        You mean they would be telling lies about him?

  2. Ya, that’s what happens with governments. Businesses can screw up just as badly, if not worsely, but they go out of business, and fear of that usually keeps businesses from throwing their weight around so much. Recent examples are the Facebook, Twitter, and Google delisting customers they don’t like; they do so at the risk of losing paying customers and encouraging competitors. Governments can’t go out of business, and the only risk is that individual politicians may lose an election, but that is too weakly connected to this kind of individualized harassment to have much influence.

    Just another example of the evils of government.

    1. Yes… I’m sure Facebook, Twitter, and Google are having sleepless nights worrying about all that competition they’re facing.

      1. “I’m sure Facebook, Twitter, and Google are having sleepless nights worrying about all that competition they’re facing.”

        They are if they’re smart. Ask the folks who used to run Myspace or Yahoo what happens if you lose focus.

  3. It’s natural to be concerned that one’s ideological allies avoid not only foil-hat rhetoric, but rhetoric that might superficially appear foil-hat or can be spun by opponents as such. This task is made much harder when the “mainstream” or “respectable” (though the concept is losing its cohesion, in part for the better) perspective is itself “fake news.”

    In this case, when you look at what is actually false about Soros, versus what is alarming but true, actual misinformation about him is far less pervasive in mainstream discourse than is the case with the Kochs. The commendable urge to hold a mirror up to all sides, and point out their embarrassing similarities, should not necessitate papering over important asymmetries. You can slide into a sort of narcissism of appearing “fair-minded” if you’re not careful.

    1. …All this is worsened yet further, of course, by the fact that as we all know “Soros” means “Jews” but “Zionists” never means anything remotely of the kind; and in fact “Jews” does not mean Jews if said by someone endowed with sufficient melanin. (I hope this does not render my own comments here incomprehensible.) Although this ridiculous perspective is utterly pervasive in the mainstream, curious parties may want to instead examine what the actual Jewish state thinks of Soros, versus what they think of the various “far-right” political leaders that have been rising of late all over the place. But never mind. All this is depressing me; please pass the pint of Ben & Jerry’s.

    2. In this case, when you look at what is actually false about Soros, versus what is alarming but true, actual misinformation about him is far less pervasive in mainstream discourse than is the case with the Kochs.

      Seems legit.

      1. Why thank you; I think so as well. This post itself has cited multiple mainstream lies about the Kochs. Its link concerning Soros, on the other hand, is typical of criticism of him in mainstream conservative sources–pointing out that the truth about him is chilling enough that one would not even have to make anything up through foilhattery, which is duly condemned as counterproductive.

        1. …Although entirely unaddressed by the article is the constant barrage of ridiculous, itself rather foil-hat, accusations that criticism of Soros and others amount to “dog whistles” because they happen to be Jewish. (Or not even so, like Steyer.)

          1. Ironically, my own personal beef with Soros has the opposite tenor, he bailed out Human Rights Watch after its donations plunged when it’s hostile obsession with Israel in its MENA division got lots of publicity–initiated by me. He also gave JStreet its seed funding, which JStreet denied for years.

            1. Yes. This is exactly the kind of person Soros is. The kind whose opposition to “nationalism” is so crude that he essentially extrapolates from the prewar Jews to their postwar enemies, and from the prewar Germans to the postwar Jews. He himself happens to be Jewish. Sadly of course this is hardly extraordinarily uncommon at all. I can’t figure what I’d be able to stomach if I were myself a Jew, but from here I can muster up at least some respect for everyone but J Street. At least one should have the virtue of honesty if nothing else. (I am of course utterly shocked at this revelation that they misled the public about their funding.)

              This attitude of Soros’s is of pretty much universally known among his critics. So your beef with him is in fact entirely typical of mainstream criticism. (He is indeed a Jew, and to the racist fringe absolutely everything is about the Jew, so their attitude toward him is hardly interesting.) Contrast mainstream criticism about the Kochs, as we both have been pointing out.

            2. If Soros helped J Street get launched, more power to him. Ever since 1967, official policy of the United States and Israel has always been that the Occupation should not be forever and that there should eventually be a Palestinian state on the other side of the Green Line. Unfortunately the Netanyahu government is dedicated to expanding Israeli settlements on the other side of the Green Line, making this goal ever harder to achieve. J Street stands for what the United States has always stood for and what Israel has always claimed it stood for: Two states living side-by-side in peace. Also, J Street is the single organization most responsible the United States being part of the JCPOA (the Iran Nuclear Deal), which (despite endless Netanyahu and Republican lies) has meant that instead of being a few months from having nuclear weapons, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is not happening. Trump is an idiot, a liar and a scoundrel for falsely declaring with zero evidence that Iran is cheating on the deal and for pulling out of the JCPOA. I anticipate lies in response to this and I shall not bother to respond to them. Thank you J Street for injecting sanity into the Iran Nuclear deal debate and if Soros helped create it, Bravo!

            3. If you can have “a beef” with Soros for funding JStreet, why can’t others have a beef with the Koch’s for some of the things they fund?

              Is JStreet uniquely evil, in your view?

        2. Not only that, but it ignores the fact that the Soros’ main foundation has contributed money that went to the caravan organizers, albeit through a series of intermediate left wing organizations.

          Also, Soros has been the funder of Media Matters, one of the worst “fake news” purveyors out there (and one that I have personally tangled with as a consequence of their misportrayal of my own group’s activities).

  4. Goolsbee said that he thought that Koch Industries was a “pass-through entity,” information that he could only have received from the Internal Revenue Service.….

    Making matters worse, according to Koch Industries’ attorney the company does in fact pay income taxes, so whatever information Goolsbee thought he was relying on was false or incomplete.

    I don’t get the entire complaint here. Apparently Goolsbee did not illegally obtain information from the IRS, since his statement was wrong. Unless you think the IRS lied to him.

    On April 13, 2011, Lee Fang published an article at ThinkProgress falsely accusing the Kochs of illegally manipulating oil and gas prices. By remarkable coincidence (not!), the Obama administration was forming a task force on fraud and manipulation in the gas market at exactly the same time; the task force was formally announced on April 21.

    Now who’s hatching conspiracy theories?

    1. The last point strikes you as a conspiracy theory? That a think tank closely tied to the White House makes up a false claim about the White House’s favorite bogeyman, a week before that false claim becomes very relevant to a new policy initiative?

      1. Yes, it sure sounds like conspiracy theory.

        I alledge, without evidence, that two things are related because somebody is secretly conspiring to make them happen. But don’t call me a conspiracy theorist!

        1. I have no proof that Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris coordinated their political messaging during the Kavanaugh hearings, therefore it is a “conspiracy theory” to say so?

          Or maybe it is common sense to suggest that two political entities that regularly meet and coordinate messaging with each other ALSO met and coordinated messaging, such as in this case?

          1. Exactly.

          2. “I have no proof that Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris coordinated their political messaging during the Kavanaugh hearings, therefore it is a “conspiracy theory” to say so?”

            Yes, when you imagine a conspiracy amongst your enemies, but there’s no evidence that supports your imaginings, the term for that “conspiracy theory”. And no, “that’s the sort of thing they would do” isn’t evidence.

      2. Yes it does. What do you think happened? Fang called up Obama and said, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea…?”

        And what do you think of the first point? The one you ignored.

  5. I must have missed the part of the story talking about how Soros’ IRS data has been breached….

    1. It turns out there’s nothing in the story about how anyone’s IRS data was breached.

      1. Except this part: ” Goolsbee said that he thought that Koch Industries was a “pass-through entity,” information that he could only have received from the Internal Revenue Service.”

        1. But incorrect information, as it turned out, so maybe he didn’t get it from the IRS, but actually got it from some old magazine article, like he said.

        2. “Except this part: ‘ Goolsbee said that he thought that Koch Industries was a “pass-through entity,” information that he could only have received from the Internal Revenue Service.'”

          This was refuted later on in the text. If the information HAD come from the IRS, the IRS would have known what kind of entity it was and how much in taxes it paid. Since Goulsbee got both wrong, his source was not the IRS. QED.

          The claim that only the IRS knows what kind of entity a business entity is is ridiculous on its face. Business entities are neither created nor maintained by the IRS, and whoever creates and maintains them knows what kind of entity it is.

          So, no, there’s nothing in this article about anyone’s IRS data being breached.

  6. As an ethnic Jew who dislikes Judaism and does not identify as Jewish, I couldn’t care less about this stuff. It’s beyond dispute that Jews are disproportionately disloyal to America and behind lefist causes. It doesn’t bother me if people recognize that obvious fact.

    1. “I couldn’t care less about this stuff.”

      Which is why you came to this article, and posted a comment on it.

      1. You’re a f*cking moron

        1. That sounds about like your usual erudition when called on your bullshit.

          Can’t you come up with anything fresher?

    2. No anti-Semitism there, not from AWRP.

      1. I have around 40 family members. 38 voted for Obama and Hillary. That should say it all.

        1. How dare all those different people vote for the candidates of their choice. The nerve!

          1. I don’t think you get it. Democrats are evil people who subscribe to an evil, destructive ideology. the only way you can support Democrats is to be evil and stupid yourself. Voting for a Democrat is not like choosing chicken over steak. It’s not a reasonable choice. It’s an expression of evil.

            1. “I don’t think you get it.”

              Oh, my God, you didn’t say that they also had different opinions than you do, the rat bastards!

              Why do you permit this?

        2. That doesn’t say shit about you. But we have all the information we need anyway.

          You’re a bigot and a fool, and a toxic presence in this blog’s comments. You have absolutely nothing to say, so you spew ignorance and hatred.

    3. This is hilarious. No actual person with Jewish ancestry calls himself an “ethnic Jew,” that term is only used on neo-Nazi type sites.

      1. No true Scotsman calls himself an “ethnic Jew”!!!

      2. “…’ethnic Jew,’ that term is only used on neo-Nazi type sites.”

        Don’t let Kirkland hear you say that.

        I suppose I should also mention that I am an ethnic Jew engaged to a gentile

      3. I do, to differentiate between non-religious Jews who identify “culturally.” I haven’t been inside of a synagogue in nearly 20 years now, haven’t said the hamotzi in probably 15, and haven’t been to a seder in maybe 10.

  7. Obama quote from the OP:

    “Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads . . . And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corpo-ration.”

    Bernstein conclusion: As President Obama well knew, Americans for Prosperity is not a foreign-controlled corporation.

    Actual Obama quote:

    Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country. And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s a big oil company, or a big bank. You don’t know if it’s a insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it’s good for their bottom line, even if it’s not good for the American people.

    My conclusion: This is simply not an attack on AFP for being foreign controlled.

    1. It’s not even an attack on AFP. It’s an attack on unnamed groups with names similar to AFP.

      1. Oh, come on, the insinuation is as clear as an insinuation can be. And note that this is the president of the U.S., not the left’s equivalent of Breitbart.

        1. Read it as you like, David. AFP was an example of a name, and there were multiple possibilities listed.

          What makes you think the audience even knew the Koch’s were behind AFP? If they did know then accusing it of being foreign-controlled would have sounded silly, and if they didn’t then how is the claim an attack on the Koch’s?

        2. Breitbart seems to enjoy a lot of popularity on the right.

        3. “Oh, come on, the insinuation is as clear as an insinuation can be”

          Sure is. He’s complaining that groups with vague names exist, and can be controlled by foreigners, or oil and gas billionaires, or whoever. Not only do these groups exist, but they have or can have a substantial effect on elections. And he offers up an example that is one of those things.

          The fact that you had to edit it to make is sound like an accusation of just one of those things, which it is not, does not suggest merit in your argument as a whole.

        4. There were better examples to use, like from the President’s jokes at the annual press event. The current President just directly tweets about Soros.

  8. *You* have shady billionaires manipulating our democracy.

    *We* have philanthropists who give a little something back for all the blessings they’ve received from living in this great country.

  9. Disliking Sorearse simply for an irrelevant group identity is wrong. OTOH being expected to treat Sorearse with kid gloves simply for an irrelevant group identity is equally wrong, but this racism is being cast in a compassionate light that fools weakminded people. Say what you will about the similarity of their methods but the right not playing these types of games shows how much more clever and insidious the left is.

    1. “Say what you will about the similarity of their methods but the right not playing these types of games shows how much more clever and insidious the left is.”

      Alternative explanation: Your brain, blinded by partisan goggles, fails to notice the right playing these types of games. Your preference for your party causes you to see all the flaws of the other guys, none of the flaws of your guys, even when they’re the exact same flaws.

      And you can’t understand why other people don’t go along.

  10. “Dichotomous Thinking”, that is “either/or”, “left” vs “right”, “good” vs “bad” is one of the oldest, and most persistent instincts of humankind.
    It is the reductionist tendency to group things into mere polar opposites.

    As such, it is one of the most easily exploitable traits.
    By identifying a common “enemy”, one side can divert and distract attention from themselves, towards others.

    Soros’ profits have seen some of their best years under Trump.
    His profits didn’t suffer under Obama either.

    The Koch’s have seen their wealth increase under both Obama and Trump.

    The WTID wealth inequality index has seen drastic increased under both the “Dems” and “GOP”.

    In fact, “Dems” or GOP”, the same ultra-wealthy continue to gain ever more wealth, the same ultra-powerful gain ever more power.
    Meanwhile, the rest of us continue to lose pace to highly under-reported inflation, as we continue to lose ever more right, freedoms, liberties, and justice.

    Don’t fall for the propaganda from either side.
    “Dark Money” protectionism rules means we have no idea whom is truly giving to whom, in full.

    When it was discovered that “Liberal” icon Elon Musk had been donating to GOP PAC’s, the response was “that’s the cost of doing business in America”.

    1. Both parties are being bought, by billionaires supporting both sides.
      It’s called “crony-capitalis” and/or CORPORATOCRACY.

      Yet followers of the “left” and “right” are busily blaming & fighting each other over whom’s “leaders” are more corrupt.
      BOTH SIDES ARE, AND DESERVE EQUAL BLAME.

      DON’T FALL FOR THE PROPAGANDA FROM EITHER.

      Billionaires, ALL BILLIONAIRES, the neo-feudal Lords, NEED TO GO!

      As stated by Economist Thomas Piketty in his book “Capital in the 21st Century”:
      “When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of
      growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in
      the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that
      radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. ”

      It happened in the past….it’s happening again today.

  11. “Dichotomous Thinking”, that is “either/or”, “left” vs “right”, “good” vs “bad” is one of the oldest, and most persistent instincts of humankind.
    It is the reductionist tendency to group things into mere polar opposites.

    As such, it is one of the most easily exploitable traits.
    By identifying a common “enemy”, one side can divert and distract attention from themselves, towards others.

    Soros’ profits have seen some of their best years under Trump.
    His profits didn’t suffer under Obama either.

    The Koch’s have seen their wealth increase under both Obama and Trump.

    The WTID wealth inequality index has seen drastic increased under both the “Dems” and “GOP”.

    In fact, “Dems” or GOP”, the same ultra-wealthy continue to gain ever more wealth, the same ultra-powerful gain ever more power.
    Meanwhile, the rest of us continue to lose pace to highly under-reported inflation, as we continue to lose ever more right, freedoms, liberties, and justice.

    Don’t fall for the propaganda from either side.
    “Dark Money” protectionism rules means we have no idea whom is truly giving to whom, in full.

    When it was discovered that “Liberal” icon Elon Musk had been donating to GOP PAC’s, the response was “that’s the cost of doing business in America”.

    1. Both parties are being bought, by billionaires supporting both sides.
      It’s called “crony-capitalis” and/or CORPORATOCRACY.

      Yet followers of the “left” and “right” are busily blaming & fighting each other over whom’s “leaders” are more corrupt.
      BOTH SIDES ARE, AND DESERVE EQUAL BLAME.

      DON’T FALL FOR THE PROPAGANDA FROM EITHER.

      Billionaires, ALL BILLIONAIRES, the neo-feudal Lords, NEED TO GO!

      As stated by Economist Thomas Piketty in his book “Capital in the 21st Century”:
      “When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of
      growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in
      the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that
      radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. ”

      It happened in the past….it’s happening again today.

  12. The war on the Kochs started with a hit piece in the New Yorker in August 2010 by Jane Mayer.

    “Hit piece?” Can you identify deliberate falsehoods in the article? Or in this one?

    What about the “Defending the American Dream Summit?” or the ads run by “Patients United Now.”

    Oh, and while we’re talking, I hear no mention from you of the Koch’s now well-known influence on hiring practices at GMU. Too embarrassing?

    1. George Mason — is that the school unfairly labeled as a right-wing mouthpiece and partisan Republican operation, or is it the school that employs Republican conspiracy theorist and low-grade right-wing babbler Christopher Farrell?

      1. Good catch, AK.

        I wasn’t aware Farrell and Bernstein were colleagues.

    2. The main problem with attacks on the Kochs is the assertion, repeatedly in the main stream media, that they are “right wing”. They are not – they are libertarians. However, the left in the US prefers to lump libertarians in with conservatives and label all of us as “right wing.”

  13. I’ll say that the most crappy part of this sort of subject is when people go after Soros for his ‘involvement’ with the Nazis.

    At that point you aren’t going after a cynical old coot, you are attacking a teenage Jew trying to navigate survival standing in the middle of the holocaust. I can only surmise that anything he did against his own people was joyless and heart wrenching.

    I don’t like Soros or his politics, but I’ll be damned if I commit blood libel against a 14 year old Jewish Kid growing up in Nazi Germany.

    1. 14-year-old Soros didn’t wasn’t in Nazi Germany, he was in Nazi-occupied Hungary. He didn’t do anything against his own people.

    2. On the other hand, if the story involved him being drunk and handsy at a party when he 17…

      1. And then he lied to Congress about it today…

  14. Bernstein kinda sorta takes baby steps to admitting there’s anti-Semitism on the right. He says he can’t rule it out?there’s the cautious step forward?but, gosh darn it, there are so many rich Jews who donate to liberals, who can tell if all that sinister talk has any anti-Semitic tone to it? Certainly not an expert in anti-Semitism, that’s for sure! So it’s pretty much a mystery, I guess. On the other hand, liberals and their vile conspiracy theories against conservatives?that stuff is obvious and plentiful, so let’s talk about that instead!

  15. The Soros white knight brigade out in full force.

    Now lets discuss the left and Sheldon Adelson.

    1. whatabout them?

      1. If your brain can justify calling left-wing Jewish critics of Sheldon Adelson “anti-Semitic,” you too can be a law professor with tens of adherents. Or something.

  16. Sometimes things get labeled “conspiratorial” thinking when it’s rather factual. People shriek about their opposition to the actions and the worldview of Soros/Kochs, usually it’s ineffective and dumb but sometimes there is a valid informative point about things they are funding, and then someone responds by either downplaying the importance of the information (often legitimate) or straight up denying factual information (not legitimate).

  17. Meanwhile, Obama’s buddy Farrakhan is in Iran chanting “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!”

    1. You guys love your whattaboutism, even if it’s not exactly the strongest connection.

      Bad news on who Farrakhan is supporting these days.

      1. Which one is the bigger fan of himself… DJT, or LF?

    2. Is that Farrakhan the Trump supporter, or is there some other Farrakhan running around?

      1. “Farrakhan the Trump supporter”

        Probably some other guy, because the guy visiting Iran doesn’t sound like a Trump supporter.

        “Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan compared US President Donald Trump to Satan and encouraged Iranians to resist American “plots” against Iran, during a visit to Tehran, according to a report by the semi-official Islamic Republic News Agency.

        “”The Christians say that Satan is a liar, and every day they keep a count of Trump’s lies,” Farrakhan said at a meeting with Mohsen Rezaee, a conservative politician who is secretary of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council, a body that advises Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei….

        “”The American government is plotting against you every day,” Farrakhan said, saying he knew of American plans to attack and occupy seven Muslim nations. “Because it is impossible to change the way of thinking of Islamic Iran, they never sleep and are always working to create an internal enemy in Iran.””

        1. “Probably some other guy, because the guy visiting Iran doesn’t sound like a Trump supporter.”

          According to a source you trust, or just one you’re citing right now because they’re saying what you want to hear?

    3. “…usually it’s ineffective and dumb but sometimes there is a valid informative point…”

      I could tell that you were really interested in the pursuit of the truth when you didn’t know that the Kochs were not jewish, and when you said referred to Farrakhan as “[Former President] Obama’s buddy”. Keep on trucking.

      1. I linked the headlines which blasted Trump for launching an “anti-Semitic” attack on the Koch brothers. Sometimes you get bad information. I’m glad that my mistake was so memorable to you.

        Don’t get butthurt over a little tongue in cheek.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.