Rand Paul

'Who Funds the Rioters?' Is Not a Question the Federal Government Needs To Ask

The notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.


Last week, following President Donald Trump's Republican National Convention acceptance speech at the White House, protesters surrounded Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and his wife on the streets of Washington, D.C. Video footage showed that the encounter grew tense, and the Pauls say they had to rely on the police to prevent the crowd from assaulting them.

These protesters deserve condemnation. It was wrong of them to make the Pauls fear for their physical safety. (They were also tactically confused: Why shout "say her name" at the senator who introduced a bill named after the "her" in question?) If the activists committed any crimes, they should be held accountable.

But some critics of these activists—including Paul himself—want the government to investigate the purported funding sources of the protests. As Paul explained in an op-ed for Fox News:

After we got back to our hotel room and some safety we heard something frightening. The "protesters" were staying on our floor—including the room next door to us. They were talking about their mob activities and even saying they thought we were here on this floor. We had to develop a 3 a.m. plan with the Capitol Police to get to safety.

My question is: Who are these people? Who paid for their hotel rooms? Who flew them in? Law enforcement needs to look at the funding of violent criminal activity like this.

And national Democrats need to confront it. It's organized. It's paid for. It's violent. It's not about Black lives or any lives; it's about anarchy and destruction. The American people are starting to catch on and grow tired of it.

Rep. Ken Buck (R–Colo.) expressed a similar demand on Twitter.

This is misguided, for several reasons.

First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth. Conspiracy theorists on all sides of the political spectrum like to imagine that their enemies are financed by some secret puppetmaster but, in general, people who show up to protests are usually not paid actors. People engaged in militant, far-left activism may travel from city to city, and they may be loosely connected with other activists in a semi-organized fashion, but they probably aren't sitting on some secret pile of money.

Second, a mandate to monitor and investigate protest groups would give the federal government frightening license to target not just dangerous activists but also mere political opponents of the administration. Open-ended investigations into alleged funding sources—absent any evidence of larger financial crimes—strikes me as exactly the kind of witch hunt that many Republican critics of the deep state purport to oppose when the target is either Trump or a pro-Trump figure. If specific activists are arrested for violence, looting, or rioting, it may be appropriate—on a case by case basis—for law enforcement to ask questions about their specific circumstances. But any open-ended probe would pose a serious concern on civil libertarians grounds.

The frustrating reality is that much of the wanton property destruction following anti-police protests in cities like Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Minneapolis is opportunistic and only vaguely ideological. When public order breaks down, some subset of the population will rob stores, smash windows, and set buildings on fire. Others flock to protest in hot zones because they like the fight. These are the maladjusted, not paid foot soldiers in some wealthy villain's war.

NEXT: Kentucky Authorities Offered Leniency to Breonna Taylor's Ex if He Would Implicate Her in Drug Crimes

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. Yaaaaaaaas, comrade

    1. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

      1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 400 dollar Easily ..GFb This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…

        ==========► Click here

    2. “The notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth”

      I read the article that supposedly proves this. It doesn’t.

      1. You can’t prove a negative. But you can take a photo of a pallet of bricks delivered conveniently near riot locations…

        1. We are confidently told that there has been no proof these happened either. I’m not likely to buy a AP debunking in USA Today without a lot more citations than they provided.

          1. Did they provide any citations? They just say, “It’s been proven false. ‘Nuff said. Now shut up.”

        2. And bricks aren’t cheap. Nor light — it takes a CDL truck to deliver a pallet of bricks, and CDLs have been Federally regulated since 1988.

        3. You are missing the point of the assertion. Perhaps nobody has yet proven there is funding, but the statement makes a positive assertion that any claims to such are a myth. The obligation of the person making the claim that everybody else’s beliefs are myths would be require to prove they are myths.

          But that’s just a technical point of debate. The real problem here is that the sole supporting link is to a USA Today article that like most of what they publish is merely a constant repetition of hypothesis as evidence for itself, a list of examples of what they suppose are false, sometimes using “Experts say”… but with no named experts backing that up, what makes them experts, and how we know that self appointed experts actually are experts and what being an expert actually means. The USA Today author could have simply written an equally compelling article by just saying, “nu-huh”. Both this Bobby Soave and the USA Today article aren’t written to actually debate anything and they really don’t try to present a logical argument, They are simply there to offer logical fallacies as bread crumbs to their logically challenged but hyperpartisan supporters who would otherwise be left floundering in FB debates,

          Piss poor job of the appeal to authority logical fallacy

      2. In fact, the headline makes an assumption that then it argues you should not be allowed to disprove.

        If there is not any organization behind the use of interstate communications and travel and disparate riots then, great, ok, let’s find out. Maybe Soave is right.

        To simply assume the conclusion you want is ridiculous. Who green-lit this dumbness?

      3. These people did not arrive via the DC METRO — between airfare and hotel rooms, a trip to DC costs about $1000. These people appear not to have jobs — where ARE they getting the money for this?

        The one shot in Wisconsin was from Arizona — that’s a couple miles from home. It’s widely accepted that there is a link between the Seattle and Portland protesters — that’s a 346 mile round trip, how are they paying for this?

        Fireworks are expensive, who’s paying for all of those? Lasers and leaf blowers aren’t cheap either, and again, who’s paying for them? Again, it isn’t like any of these people have jobs or anything?

        The IRS routinely demands that people explain how they pay expenses that exceed their declared income. And if these people don’t have an income, where IS their money coming from?

        1. We definitely do know that district attorneys funded are releasing the perps before any investigation.

      4. agreed. “First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.” is a myth. George Soros is not a shadowy secret cabal , he openly states he wants to destroy the U. S. govt. He and Bloomberg give millions to the rioters to keep them in the streets. The rioters are the SS troops of the democrat party.

        1. It is public record as well that he funded district attorneys who are releasing the rioters. Why did he fund DAs? Now we know.

        2. I am trying to prove to blind liberals that Soros is hugely responsible. They think he is a saint. What are your sources? I want to provide a source / proof.

      5. All these people have money to travel from city to city. Loads of bricks being dropped off as weapons. Someone’s paying for it. The actions are too consistent from place to place not to have some coordination.
        The article is a big zero.

      6. Well said – illogical article. States as fact that which was to be proven.

    3. Amazing that Soave knows the answer already.



      1. Alleged libertarian website attacks the most libertarian members of Congress. Trying to be fair and balanced?

      2. Oh Robby, You’re so close! So close to being loved and accepted by Chris Cuomo, Anderson, Michelle Maddow and her little sister, Chris Haynes. And Yes! Yes! If you keep writing articles like this one, Don Lemon WILL notice you.

        Keep dreaming and shoot for the stars Little One.


      3. Yep. We can do away with all state and federal investigations. Just ask Soave.

    4. “Pat no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

      You know nothing in the world terrifies the Reason fugazis more than the old adage to “follow the money”. What would it do to their already declining reputation if someone discovered that there’s some “intersectionality” between their funding and the anti-American domestic insurgency funding?

      1. Well, the living Koch brother has partnered up with Soros…

        1. Officially? Where? I’m curious.

            1. Thanks guys. I obviously hadn’t heard of this yet.

              Whole lot of pro-Russian tripe in the McAdams piece, FWIW.

              Koch and Soros sound like they want the same sort of globalist uniformity in governance and culture. Not surprising they have started collaborating, and equally unsurprising then why this magazine and its previously reputable writers have gone so drastically downhill.

            1. Thanks for saving me the effort, sidd

    5. I would think after months of making themselves look naive and stupid about mostly peaceful rioting and looting they’d be hesitant to be so sure about something they barely acknowledge exists.

      It’s kinda like the Dems saying for months these riots aren’t happening, then all of the sudden they acknowledge they exist, and they’re Trump’s fault.

      1. In the roundup thread I linked to the Ford Foundation as one example of funding these groups. It isn’t even a shadow conspiracy. They do it in the open.

        1. Really? Are you sure it’s not Ellen Degeneres and her team of pedophile baby eaters?

          1. I’m sure there’s multiple groups contributing!

            1. There are but reason won’t let me post my sources.

              So go to influence watch and look up BLM. They use politico, the Atlantic, Washington post, a couple research groups, and many other sources to show funding coming from Soros’ open society and the Ford foundation.

          2. So instead of offering commentary to debunk the assertion, you resort to being an asshole. Figures.

          3. no lester they’re all to busy making pedophilia legal in the peoples republik of Kalifornia. (the PRK)

    6. Robby calling it a myth sound a lot like Rep. Nadler, was that intentional ?

    7. My God Soave! Reason has really lost their way. It is just prosperous to state as infacedly as you did that these terrorists are not funded or organized. What is unorganized is your illogic.

      1. RICO

    8. I have seen picture of rioters handing out supplies, the masks and riot gear cost money. Many of these rioters are supposedly poor unemployed students etc. Where do they get the money for this stuff?

    9. Boy you are one ignorant cunt Soave. Nothing you write has any logical or moral value whatsoever. Most of the rest of the writers at Reason continue to express a libertarian perspective, but what an unabashedly leftist cunt you are. Why don’t you move over to CNN or someplace and suck leftist dick over there? Fuck you.

      1. So harsh!
        You have to consider that, on the other hand, Soave…errr…okay, there is no other hand, he’s fucked and this was one of the best examples of that.

  2. Do you have notarized documents showing the lack of funding?

    1. Do you have notarized documents showing the presence of funding?

      1. How do we know notaries are even real? WHO’S PAYING THEM?!?

        1. Is this the real Fat Mike, who’s paying him?

          1. No it’s not Fat Mike. It’s his drug habit.

            1. Oh that’s too bad, Man. I think I jammed with that dude. He could shred pretty good.

              1. Hang around with his drug habit, he’ll be back around.

                1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required.POl Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…..

                  ========== CashApp

      2. No. Hence, the investigation.

        The only reason to argue against an investigation is to ensure the ongoing flow of resources to the rioters.

        BTW, Robbie, it is NOT “terrifying” for the government to investigate the organization and financing of violent protests. Or even if people “peaceably assembling for redress of grievances” are being paid to assemble for reasons that serve the interests of politcal actors. Much as I dislike the government, I’d still like to know who’s trying to manipulate the system.

  3. “First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth. ”

    How about open, obvious funding?

    1. Btw, the entire paragraph might be Robby’s lamest ever. I think ENB ghostwrote it.

      1. I had to look at the byline twice to make sure it wasn’t ENB; then I read “Conspiracy theorists on all sides of the political spectrum”

        1. This article must have been posted to get a rise out of us. It’s beyond the pale.

    2. I happen to KNOW where they got their funding! Remember that enhanced “unemployment compensation” of $600/week? Remember that $1200 check every adult citizen received? Yeah. Trump himself funded these people!!!! /sarc

      1. That is probably the biggest single source of funding.

        1. Stimulus checks would run out, these guys are highly organized, flying around the country, pallets of bricks and 2x4s, show-up within a day. Nice hotels…… I say follow the money on these rioters. Peaceful protestors are a different animal. The rioters need to be hunted. BTW Rand Paul didn’t think he would be assaulted he said he would be dead.

      2. You’re doing sarc’s job for him now? I’m not sure if you meant to be sarcastic about sarcasmic, but your comment actually made sense. A lot of antifa probably have gotten checks from the Federal government.

        1. The part about Trump funding it was the sarcasm. Obviously, Congress funded it. Trump just signed-off on it. I am also not saying that handing out cash in an emergency to individuals is necessarily bad — infusions of cash should be handed out to the people, and not other entities.

        2. No, he used actual sarcasm, not tearful, hyperbolic strawmen.

      3. No Trump did not, CON-gress did. Keep in mind every member of the House and every member of the Senate present voted yea on the bill. Trump vetoing it would have been useless. If you disagree, vote against your incumbent House Rep. and Senator in their next elections.

        1. You must have missed the /sarc.

        2. If Trump had really opposed it, he could have used his influence with the Republican-dominated Senate to changer their vote, he could have vetoed it.

          1. He could have vetoed it, but it might have been political suicide. (Note: I am not a Trump supporter, just recognizing the politics involved in everything “COVID.”)

            1. Well for me it would’ve saved Trump and most of the entire Republican Party from the “political suicide” he and the rest of the RINO’S endured in my mind after passing that B.S. CARES/Communist Act. Maybe I’m the only one who thinks “stolen/unearned money” is just progressive “Commie Money” and passing it was title one on the Demon Party’s Wishlist.

    3. Great idea. Can we start with the President’s tax refund to see if he being paid by the Russians?

      1. The walls are closing in!

        1. When the walls close in, will we get “explosive revelations!”?

      2. “Moderate”

        Why are all the leftists here “neutral” or “moderate”. Just because the media expects them to take in information without question they think they can gaslight others?

      3. OMG get a life, that’s been debunked.

  4. RICO – Don’t really give a damn if they are funded by some left wing dick or not. These people are organized and committing criminal acts. Bring the hammer down on them hard. Left-wing political terrorism has to stop. End of story.

    1. Well, in the other 999 out of 1000 instances, we also went after the source of the terrorists funding as well as bringing the hammer down

    2. Unknown_Pundit should change name to THOR!

    3. tru, dat

  5. Well, it’s a myth probably at least. Maybe. But saying we shouldn’t look into it sounds like something a member of the shadowy cabal would say.

    1. It’s a purely local matter. If the DC cops want to waste their time looking at this, fine. It’s a bad idea, on principle, to have the FBI or DOJ looking at stuff like this.

      1. Interstate crime is not a local matter. It is a federal matter. States don’t have the power to prosecute crimes that occur in other jurisdictions and interstate crime is an actual no shit enumerated federal power in the Constitution.

        So, no, this is something the feds should be investigating.

        1. Maybe if the Feds weren’t infiltrating the Klan or trying to catch Trump muttering something in Russian they’d have time to investigate.

        2. Foreign funding is an even bigger federal matter.

      2. The Kenosha police, on a tip, stopped some out of state vehicles carrying body armor to the rioters, and picking up Molotov cocktail ingredients. That’s pretty clearly FBI/DOJ territory, people traveling interstate as part of a criminal conspiracy.

        1. “picking up Molotov cocktail ingredients”

          Gasoline, rags, and wine bottles..I have a garage full of dat shit.

          1. But probably not the body armor and helmets.

            1. And homemade shields.

          2. “Gasoline, rags, and wine bottles..I have a garage full of dat shit.”

            Yes, and if you are headed to a riot with that in your truck the cops will arrest you.

          3. And you gather them together and transport them across state lines how often?

          4. Next time you’re taking it all to the dump, make sure you don’t accidentally drop it off where a bunch of arsonists, rioters and violent terrorists are gathered.

            It might not look as innocent as you are trying to make it sound.

        2. Kenosha is on the Wisconsin-Illinois border, so nearly everyone in town “travels interstate” frequently.

    2. Well, it’s a myth probably at least.

      IMO, better described as apocryphal. There are dozens if not hundreds of corporations who’ve donated to BLM. If those funds are being used to organize/support rioters or rioting then even a libertarian would call for the dissolution of the organization and provisional return of the funds involved.

      How many homes and businesses did Enron burn down?

      1. PG&E does the burning.

        1. +1 exploding gas main and 1 sparking high-tension line.

      2. IMO, better described as apocryphal. There are dozens if not hundreds of corporations who’ve donated to BLM. If those funds are being used to organize/support rioters or rioting…

        It’s worth looking into. If there are some people paying to fly these “protestors” around to different cities to riot and burn shit then that makes it an interstate crime, which is absolutely in the fed’s jurisdiction. I’m not sure how much good a congressional investigation would accomplish. Those tend to devolve into grandstanding shit shows, but having the DOJ/FBI investigate seems like a legitimate use of federal law enforcemente resources to me.

    3. That’s the thing. I can agree that “It’s not substantiated”. However, saying that it’s a “myth” is premature at best. There might not be a shadowy cabal. However, there is a lot of money flowing somewhere. I’m nowhere near convinced that it isn’t a very short flow from people to their friends. However, at the very least, investigating into it isn’t objectively absurd like Soave is implying. I would be a bit shocked if at least some of the money wasn’t going to line the pockets of corruption or criminal enterprises,

  6. First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth. Conspiracy theorists on all sides of the political spectrum like to imagine that their enemies are financed by some secret puppetmaster but, in general, people who show up to protests are usually not paid actors.

    Protests cost money. Body armor (look it up) costs money. Anything that happens for 90 days straight costs money.

    Someone, not necessarily a ‘puppetmaster’, is writing checks. Someone is posting bail.

    1. Do Biden’s staff and friends constitute a cabal?

      1. antifa.com forwards to joebiden.com and prompts for campaign contributions. Oddly enough, it’s a story that the news isn’t carrying.

        1. Snopes, surprisingly enough, has an entry for it and declares it Mostly True. (I was shocked they were that honest.)

          1. Someone at Snopes is getting fired.

            1. In a mostly peaceful manner

          2. It’s definitely true.
            Or was.
            And I’m pretty sure it was set up by Team Trump to troll.
            I give it an A+

          3. In a update, Reuters Fact Check now has it up and rates it:

            Partly False – “Antifa.com does redirect to Joebiden.com, but this is not proof of a link between the two”

            The logic fail is enormous. Anything to support the narrative.

            1. So a link is not proof of a link. Got it.

            2. A literal link is not proof of a link.
              So, that is completely false.
              Still not as false as Stetlers’ amazing “Can you imagine the reaction if there were any media organization that attacked Trump as often as Fox attacks Biden?”

              I must say thanks to the progressives for creating degrees of falsehood greater than “false”, which used to be an absolute, like “black”, or “invisible”. They have uncovered depths of mendacity previously undreamed of.

          4. Politifact (living up to it’s Orwellian bias)

            Half True “Antifa.com redirects to Biden’s campaign website, but anyone can buy, redirect a domain”

        2. Looks to me like he’s a socialist with a soft spot for rioters who donate.

          1. “C’mon, man!”

            1. Malarkey and poopy-cock!

        3. That one sounds like a prank by someone who is not a Biden or antifa fan. Anyone can buy a domain name and make it redirect to whatever they want.

          1. JohnOBrennan.com

          2. Yea, think it was not even a secret that Team Trump did that

  7. “Stop asking questions about the secretive players funding the violence, which btw they’re not secretive and shadowy at all, but just stop asking about them, OK?”

    That’s not the way to discourage conspiracy theories.

    1. There are multiple reports from Kenosha where the locals are saying all of the rioters were not from there. In Washington DC, the mayor said yesterday that all of the people who were arrested this weekend in the violence around the BLM march were from out of town.

      We have mobs of people descending on communities to riot. Who the fuck does Robby think he is kidding here claiming that who is funding and behind this is just something the government has no business looking into?

      1. So just like the Tulds Riots?

      2. The same thing happened in Spokane in June. They tried it on Coeur D’Alene Idaho too, but the locals there made it clear that want going to work. So they got back on their chartered bus and left.

        1. Coeur d’Alene, we’re metropolitan until we need to be redneck. And then we are full on redneck. There is still enough people in Coeur d’Alene that remember when it was a logging town on a lake and worked for IFP or Potlatch.

          1. Hell, though they are in the 60s for the most part, I know there are still some in CDA that remember working for Uncle Bunker and Sunshine mining company in Kellogg.

            1. Snap out of it, Man! Your driftin’ back.

              1. Peppridge Farms remembers.

                1. Pepperidge Farm was burned to the ground by peaceful protesters

                  1. My god! We’re the elves still locked inside the tree?

                    1. Most of the Elves were largely unburned.

                      But mostly asphyxiated.

      3. If somebody is funding anything, the most likely answer is the rioters themselves. On what basis should we assume that some spooky ghostdonor is paying people to travel to cities and start riots? Most people in America have the means to transport themselves.

        1. No one is assuming anything. That is why we need to look. On what basis do we assume no one else is funding them? We know for a fact that there is a national organization that bails them out. The VP and most of Biden’s staff donated to it. Why do you think they are the only one?

          If you don’t think there is anything there, you should want an investigation to kill the rumors that there is.

          1. Is that really how you think it should work? What happened to probable cause? If one is investigated for a crime, (let’s say, burglary, as an example) the investigation is a response to an observed, documented incident. In fact, this is a clear Fourth Amendment violation. You are suggesting to invert our foundational principle of the presumption of innocence.

            Let’s put the culture war nonsense aside and view this rationally. I don’t think you actually want to live in a world where law enforcement conducts investigations based on fantastic speculation pulled out of thin air.

            1. Since when does presumption of innocence mean “Nothing to see here! Don’t ask questions!”

            2. What happened to probable cause? We have it. There are anecdotes all over the country about outside people being bused in and supplies like bricks and firebombs and such being supplied to them. Probable cause is not proof you fucking moron. Probable cause means there is evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that a crime has been committed. We have more than enough for that and to justify an investigation.

              1. Blargrfth has made it clear in his few appearances here that he’s nothing more than a leftist concern troll

            3. Arson, murder, assaults… not probable cause? Are you even aware how they took down the leadership of the mob? It wasn’t by not looking.

              1. There is a huge difference between arresting people who committed a crime and investigating people who maybe gave money to someone who maybe committed a crime.

                1. “maybe committed a crime”

                  Well assuming the investigators aren’t morons like you, they’d probably start with people that DID commit the crimes, and go from that direction, not the other way around.

                2. If they knowingly gave money in support of criminal activity they are an accomplice and therefore it is legitimate to investigate and arrest them.

                3. Paying someone to commit a crime is in fact a crime fuckwit.

                  1. I never disagreed with that statement. What I said is why have no reason to believe that anybody was paid to commit a crime. If there is some evidence that this happen there is no need to withhold this information! Help me understand how you know this is a crime that deserves investigation.

                    1. “What I said is why have no reason to believe that anybody was paid to commit a crime.”

                      This sums up your dumbass nicely. Run along.

                  2. I know, right? On this topic the leftist turds have nowhere to go. They’re like a gaffed flounder on the beach, choking on sand. Wow, I’m hungry.

          2. The entire gist of this article is that we shouldn’t even think about it, much less look for it.

          3. “The lack of evidence is proof that an investigation is justified!”

            1. There isn’t a complete lack of evidence. There is lots of evidence. There just isn’t proof.

              Look Jeff, you are too stupid and dishonest to talk about these things. Why don’t you let the adults talk for once.

              1. Lying Jeffy can’t help but lie.

            2. Posters list multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence and along comes ChemJeff to gaslight and state it is a complete lack of evidence. The same ChemJeff who has been stating that the Russian investigation was warranted because of even less circumstantial evidence. What a surprise. So you ignored all the circumstantial evidence people have provided because it runs counter to your narrative?

              1. and he continues to claim he is the iy honest and neutral libertarian who doesn’t choose a side.

                So fucking pathetic at this point.

        2. Most people that could afford to travel from city to city have jobs and have to save money for traveling. And most of those people couldn’t afford to take 3 months off to do so. And most people don’t riot and loot while on vacation.

          Do you think these people are commuting back out of state during the day to a job, then commuting back at night? You should think this through a little more my guy.

          1. Are there any current events resulting in a bunch of young people having cash on hand and not needing to go to work? Think it through a little if you need to.

            1. Just because it might not be the case, doesn’t mean it isn’t the case. You don’t really seem to understand how this works.

            2. They’re so flush with unemployment they can totes afford all on their own to stay at the same hotel as US Senator Rand Paul

              1. They are the oppressed proletariat, you know

            3. Cash in hand to travel all around the country, staying in hotels? Sounds like somebody’s never done much traveling that his parents didn’t pay for.

        3. Chartered buses might be the first clue?

          1. And as part of my job, I often look at the cost of chartering buses for field tours, range tours etc, as well as being on the planning committee for professional development and professional organization meetings, and chartering a bus is not cheap.

        4. Most people in America have the means to transport themselves.

          So tell me again what is so horrible about America.

    2. The government is always investigating, It’s what they do. For years, white supremacist groups have been 50% true believers and 50% FBI informants.
      Islamist groups aren’t funded by the U.S., the informants are.

  8. Soros is pretty open about his funding of BLM. He’s not trying to be shadowy.

    1. That’s what I thought, but I have not tried to confirm that it’s true. Some of my right-wing friends certainly believe it.

    2. He’s also funded the campaigns of some of the DA’s that aren’t charging people after they’re arrested.

      1. Including the DA that DID charge the couple in St. Louis for defending their property.

        1. Weird how useful local DAs became all of a sudden…

          1. In the same jurisdictions that many of these unfunded, non-organized riots occur…

  9. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? click here

  10. If we can’t ask the question, then how do we know it is a myth? If you are convinced it is a myth, then you should want the government to investigate it. All refusing to support an investigation does is cause people who believe the myth to conclude it must be true and that is why the government won’t investigate. The only way to defeat a myth is with the truth. And the only way to get the truth is to investigate and show the public what the facts actually are.

    So, if you really think this is some “right wing myth” you should want the government asking the question because you know the answer and want the facts to come out. If, however, you know that it isn’t a myth and you don’t want the truth coming out, then the last thing you want is an investigation.

    They arrested vans full of losers from Portland on their way to Keonosha with riot gear and various other supplies useful for causing problems. There are multiple documented cases of people dropping off pallets of bricks for rioters to use. Who is doing that? Who paid for the unemployed losers in Portland to travel to Wisconsin and Minneapolis and Austin Texas and other places?

    Traveling across state lines to engage in rioting is rightfully a federal crime. So, yes, who is funding these people is exactly the question the government should be asking. Anyone who doesn’t think so, is just on the side of the rioters. Fuck you Robby.

    1. This is true – finally, an appropriate use of the Commerce Clause! If people are funding interstate criminal activities, that falls under federal jurisdiction.

      I can understand the concern regarding precedent, but this is not a spontaneous protest anymore. This is not a group of people petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. These people are committing crimes.

      Maybe Reason is funding some of it and that’s why they don’t want any investigation?

      My opinion of this publication has dropped over the last few months, and I hate that.

      1. Nah, Reason Foundation “activism” is confined to lobbying for public/private partnerships to toll existing roads especially all un-tolled miles of the interstate highway system.

        1. Nothing makes Libertarian ideology appealing to the public like associating it with having to pay to use roads your tax dollars built. Reason loves tolls.

          1. This, and Open Borders, are the two worst Libertarian ideas.

            1. Safe injection sites, UBI… there really is a mixed bag of libertarian ideas that, if implemented properly, *could* be libertarian but are otherwise onerously illiberal.

              1. UBI isn’t a real libertarian idea. I know some people that claim to be libertarians support it, but philosophically it doesn’t really jive. And I think safe injection sites is also questionable as a compromise to ending drug prohibition, which is the real libertarian position.

                1. Here’s my take on safe injection sites, if they are privately funded all for them, if they use taxpayer money, they shouldn’t exist.

                  1. Here’s my take on safe injection sites, if they are privately funded all for them,

                    My take is that the term is newspeak. Privately funded injection sites are called clubs or homes. The term ‘safe injection site’ is newspeak to sell an expansion of homeless shelters and medical access for all. People will die at safe injection sites surrounded by medical professionals the same way homeless (and not-so-homeless) people die in hospitals and emergency rooms all the time. The only way it’s routinely OK if people keep dying of ODs or exposure or malnourishment or COVID or heart disease or diabetes or all of the above at such facilities is if they enjoy an immunity analogous to medical centers and, unlike such medical centers, routinely discriminate against your regular old heart disease and diabetes patients in favor of those with illicit drugs in their system.

                    IMO, from a practicality standpoing, “safe injection site” is somewhere between “smokers-only hospital” and “hospice care center”.

                    1. I don’t necessarily disagree. I think a club is a better solution or a charity ran place for the homeless drug addicts.

                2. Yeah, they may be compromises that might tempt libertarians, but they are not libertarian ideas.

                3. UBI isn’t a real libertarian idea. I know some people that claim to be libertarians support it, but philosophically it doesn’t really jive.

                  Totally true. UBI isn’t libertarian, it’s an incrementally less totalitarian way to fulfill the “social insurance” expectation of the western civ’s current social contract.

                  It’s totally unrealistic to expect proper implementation, but our governments could achieve a similar amount of transfer payments at a negligible percent of the current bureaucracy.

                  1. It won’t stop at any reasonable level. It would eventually debase the currency as quickly as current vote-buying methods are.

                4. UBI isn’t a real libertarian idea. I know some people that claim to be libertarians support it, but philosophically it doesn’t really jive.

                  Both Friedman and Hayek entertain the notion if not outright argue in favor of income guarantees as a legitimate function of government. That’s not a very big tent.

                  1. That’s not a very big tent.

                    The libertarian tent that excludes them that is…

          2. Well, if they removed the other taxing modalities that supplied the money to maintain those roads and then it was explained to people that they would ONLY be taxed as much as they actually USED the road, it may be more popular.

            But they’d keep taxing everyone all the same…

          3. Clearly, Libertarianism loves not actually HAVING a country, but wants to toll all the roads, privatize law enforcement and legaize pot.
            Libertarianism seems also to be dead set against ever winning elections.

        2. How else will the serfs be kept on the manor?

          Like I’ve said a few times before with Sullum, Soave’s shown he can do better journalism than this. The Rolling Stone hoax, for one. Both of them need to be allowed to do it.

          1. The Rolling Stone hoax, for one

            Is saying in an official DC publication what every single normal dude is saying in private really journalism?

        3. Except Koch and Soros did partner up to form something similar to Open Society Foundation, best known for funding numerous “color revolutions”, a few months back, for some vague reason…

      2. My opinion of Rico Suave will never recover

    2. they should investigate but will it turn out like their investigations into voting fraud and conclude it doesn’t exist even though you can google plenty of documented examples. Hence why no one trust the government anymore. to be honest i don’t thing most in power care since the rioting helps both sides cement their bases which is not a good way to do that instead of doing something positive

    3. “If you are convinced it is a myth, then you should want the government to investigate it”

      Do you even attempt to maintain any consistency in your world view?

      1. Do you even try to make an argument or do you just emote? There is nothing inconsistent about what I am saying. If you think there is, then you need to explain it. Just asserting it makes you look like a fucking dumb ass and wastes everyone’s time.

      2. Has the NAP been violated due to rioting and mob tactics, yes or no? If it has, why are you against a response?

        1. Because he’s some dumb punk lefty kid who doesn’t understand libertarianism. Maybe he can go get a journalism degree and work for Reason some day!

    4. It’s not just government that can investigate. Journalists have done some astounding follow-the-money work, too.

  11. Robby you are such a hack. It is pathetic. Shame on you.

    1. That assumes that he’s capable of feeling shame, and I see no evidence of that.

  12. These protesters deserve condemnation.

    Apparently assaulting a U.S. Senator is protesting, and totally not assault.

    1. “Apparently assaulting a U.S. Senator is protesting, and totally not assault.”

      Mostly peaceful protest! /sarcasm

      1. They were advocating that the Senator and his family take up bicycling.

      2. Want to irritate folks?

        Mention that Charlottesville was “mostly peaceful”.

    2. Protesting and violence are not mutually exclusive propositions. Non-violent protest is so 20th century.

    3. So Close: Biden gives speech denouncing violins


      1. Those guys are just ASKING to be banned again!

  13. If there is funding, there are taxes issues.

    1. Oooooh, I bet if they find out that people are getting paid, California will demand that the protesters/rioters form a union and complete a W-2.

      1. If they attend more than 28 riots a year, they also run afoul of CA’s restrictions on freelancing.

        1. Have they had 1,000 hours of training in mostly peaceful rioting? Are they fully licensed to burn down that car dealership?

          1. Do they have a high school diploma?

            1. Or their Peaceful Rioting Educational Development certification? Their PRED.

              1. Where is their proof of workers’ comp enrollment? Or payments to the unemployment insurance fund?

                1. And where’s OSHA in all of this. Shouldn’t those business owners be required to provide the rioters with some sort of protection from the open flames they’re starting? This is dangerous work and the rich 1% business owners need to pay their fair share to purchase fire blankets and rioter’s comp insurance.

      2. More to the point: California will demand that Antifa stop treating their people as gig workers, and officially hire them, pay some minimum wage, and provide benefits. And then tax them.

  14. “First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.”

    The fact that lawyers were busted for distributing Molotov cocktails at riots isn’t a myth.


    The fact that anti-fa uses pre-coordinated black-bloc tactics and that various organizers act nationally is not a myth.

    1. And the fact that the current Democratic VP nominee was shilling for an organization that bails out rioters is also not a myth. Neither is the fact that multiple Biden staffers donated to this organization.

      Can you imagine if there was an organization dedicated to bailing out anyone on the far right who was arrested for rioting and it came out that a bunch of Trump aides were donating to it and the VP was pushing it on his Twitter feed, the kind of fit reason would have over it? Reason lost it’s collective mind for weeks because Trump said that some of the people protesting in Charlottesville were good people. The fucking left endorses and funds interstate rioting and reason thinks it is wrong to even ask who is doing it. Pathetic.

      1. I’m still waiting for Congress to hold hearings into Joe Biden bragging on television about quashing a corruption investigation into his son.

      2. People are being banned/suspended from Twitter for stating that Kyle Rittenhouse was defending himself when he shot three criminals who were attacking him…

        1. I got banned from an NBA forum I have been on for years for saying that. Of course the entire subject was brought up by the ops themselves. Then they banned anyone who disagreed with them.

        2. That’s fucked up. Self defense is the defense he will use in court. It looks like he has a very strong case for it. Yet people aren’t even allowed to mention it?

          1. But it’s a myth that Twitter (and GoFundMe who took down a site to raise money for his defense, which is allowable under their ToS) are targeting conservatives and the right wing.

            1. I just got what Robby means by a myth, it is just like the myth that Twitter and others are targeting right wingers, you have to ignore all the circumstantial evidence and accept their word that it is a myth.

    2. Why do they need lawyers to do that? Some legal angle? Those must be the world’s most expensive Molotov cocktails!

    3. He uses a very sleazy, but very common, tactic of the : Adding qualifiers to a statement that make it impossible to counter.
      “shadowy” and “cabal” in this case.

      And he’s right, in that the people financing this coup aren’t shadowy ALL THE TIME, and may not constitute a “cabal”.

      It’s like saying “the right pretends these mostly peaceful protests are the work of unsavory, cat-stroking multi-billionaire criminal masterminds.”

      One gets mired down in the dispute about the adjectives and “cat-stroking” when the REAL discrediting flaw is at the beginning, where what the “right” “pretends” is mischaracterized. Sleazy.

  15. Robby your proof that it is a myth is a USA Today article that is anything but definitive. Do better.

    1. I think it calls for a prim “not a good look”.

    1. Plotting.

  16. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    —-First Amendment

    The First Amendment doesn’t protect the freedom to violate other people’s rights through assault and arson any more than the Second Amendment protects the freedom to violate other people’s rights with a gun, and if someone is out there conspiring to violate other people’s rights through assault or arson, then law enforcement has a legitimate libertarian duty to protect our rights.

    Is all this still new to you?

    If you stayed up all night trying to think of a great way to discredit libertarians right now, you might not come up with anything better than ignoring the difference between investigating credible charges of conspiracy to perpetrate assault and arson, on the one hand, and violating people’s right to peaceably assemble, on the other.

    1. He is not just discrediting libertarians. He is discrediting free assembly. Robby thinks he is justifying the riots by associating them with protests. Being an idiot, he doesn’t understand that no one is ever going to accept riots as justified. So, he is just discrediting free assembly by associating it with rioting. Once the public associates assembly and protests with riots, which thanks to jackasses like Robby they are starting to do so, then they will be much more willing to support government restrictions on real protests and assembly.

      1. Yeah, like I said, investigating an armed robber for shooting a convenience store clerk is not a violation of the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the freedom to violate other people’s rights. It just protects the right to choose to own and carry a gun.

        The right to peaceably assemble doesn’t protect the freedom to violate someone’s rights by organizing vandalism on a wide scale, assaulting police officers, or orchestrating an arson campaign either.

        Anybody who can’t understand the difference between protecting rights and violating rights has no business calling himself a libertarian. That being said, you’re right, anybody who can’t tell the difference between rioting and the right to peaceably assemble also has no business pretending to be rational–regardless of whether they’re libertarian.

        I think Robby is just picking a conclusion first and then looking for a rationalization afterwards.

      2. In this article and in others, Robby is very clear about criticizing the riots. What he is illustrating in this article is the importance of using good arguments to not dilute your position. Yes, the riots deserve to be criticized. It does not follow that we should jump to unfounded conclusions that these riots are organized and funded by some external, invisible source. Using such claims makes your otherwise correct argument against the riots much weaker.

        Gee, you would almost think that some people around here have alot of faith in central planning.

        1. Yes, the riots deserve to be criticized. It does not follow that we should jump to unfounded conclusions that these riots are organized and funded by some external, invisible source. Using such claims makes your otherwise correct argument against the riots much weaker.

          Saying that we should investigate is not jumping to any conclusion. It is saying we should investigate and see if it is true. It is Robby who is jumping to the conclusion here that it isn’t true and there is no need to investigate. There is no reason to assume either way. So, lets have the FBI take a look and find out.

        2. “A mandate to monitor and investigate protest groups would give the federal government frightening license to target not just dangerous activists but also mere political opponents of the administration.

          —-Robby Soave

          There’s so much wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to start–how ’bout we start with conflating looting, arson, vandalism, and assault with “protest”?

          We’re talking about prosecuting people who have violated someone’s rights–as well as anyone who willfully helped them to do so and coordinated and/or organized their activities with that purpose in mind. Prosecuting people for conspiracy and/or as accessories is hardly a novel application of the law, and pretending that investigating crime and prosecuting criminals for assault, vandalism, looting, or arson somehow interferes with anyone’s right to peaceably protest is preposterous–especially under these circumstances.

          It’s also obnoxious against the backdrop of a news media that has all but universally refused to use the word “rioter” to describe vandals, looters, assaulters, and arsonists–and just refers to them all as “protesters”. The refusal of journalists to distinguish between rioters and protesters has done great harm to society’s willingness to tolerate peaceful protest, to the point that people grab their guns to defend their front yards when they hear that “protesters” are coming–and Soave seems to be failing to make the same distinction.

          1. For people who want to uphold the Constitutional integrity of the United States, value the presumption of innocence, and detest the permission slip nanny-state that government has become, there is nothing wrong with what you quoted from Robby.

            Nobody is arguing about prosecuting violent criminals. Nobody is seeking to shield arsonists, burglars, etc. from law enforcement. You may have a valid concern that the public perception of a “protest” is being badly distorted, but that does not invalidate the concern of government being used to intrude on people’s personal finances (unless you’re one of those “repeal Citizens United” types of people?).

            You can spend all the time in the world debating the difference between a protester and a rioter but while you’re doing that we have a government that wants to further narrow constitutional protections of civil liberties as they seek to police freedom of speech and assembly while invoking a process that seems analogous to the general warrants that the American Revolution sought to overthrow.

            1. ou can spend all the time in the world debating the difference between a protester and a rioter but while you’re doing that we have a government that wants to further narrow constitutional protections of civil liberties as they seek to police freedom of speech and assembly while invoking a process that seems analogous to the general warrants that the American Revolution sought to overthrow.

              How? By investigating who is funding criminal behavior? That is a very odd chain of thought you have there. No one is saying that anyone not guilty of a crime should be prosecuted. But there is pretty good evidence that people are paying activists to go to towns and riot and loot. If that is true, the people doing that are guilty of a crime. There is nothing unconstitutional about investigating a crime where there is evidence one might be occurring like we have here.

              Investigating interstate crime is not infringing on the 1st Amendment. To say that it is, is to equate looting and arson with lawful public assembly.

              1. Hopefully your definition of government power abuse is narrower than simply prosecution. If there is good evidence that somebody is organizing and funding efforts to travel across the country and start riots, Ken Buck and Rand Paul certainly did not present any. It is not law enforcement’s job to patrol the country looking for evidence of crimes that may not even exist, it is their job to respond to crimes that have been credibly reported.

                I did not mean to suggest that government investigation of funding criminal behavior is unconditionally wrong, but that it is wrong without probable cause. If, upon arrest, some of the rioters were found to have evidence that they were paid from some common origin then I agree that deserves investigation. However, if all have to base this investigation upon are “go after Soros and the Clintons because of course they must be behind it!!!” then that deserves no support from a libertarian.

                1. No they are pointing to the equipment, chartered buses and other circumstantial evidence of coordination and funding.

                  1. None of that is evidence of an outside mastermind funder. Is it so unbelievable that a couple dozen people can’t pool together a few hundred dollars for a bus? This reminds me of Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech. Imagine people being responsible for their own actions!

                    Also, when I searched for “Kenosha charter buses” all I found were websites trying to sell me bus tickets. So maybe this evidence is even less than circumstantial.

                    1. It is absolutely evidence of that. Just because it is possible that it isn’t that way doesn’t mean that it isn’t evidence that it could. Your standard seems to be “if there is an innocent explanation there is not probable cause”. That is reasonable doubt. And the standard for probable cause to investigate is much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.

              2. Lol.
                Every other thread John and Ken and crew are unable to draw any distinction between protestors and rioters and literally argue that everyone not voting for Trump is a murderous Antifa thug…then all of a sudden for this thread they can conveniently tell a difference in order to springboard into their argument that this is legit LEO activity as opposed to politically motivated “investigation.”

                1. That has never happened but way to totally lie.

            2. Uhmm the government does this all the time, intrude on personal financing, in regards to terrorism and organized crime. Or are you arguing that that isn’t correct and a violation of the Government’s authority?

              1. Yeah, a lot of that stuff is unconstitutional.

                “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

                There aren’t any exceptions there for going after the mafia or terrorists, and violating our constitutional rights in order to go after organized crime or terrorists is unconstitutional.

                P.S. There may be a million valid definitions of a libertarian. One of them might be, “A libertarian is someone who won’t sell his or her constitutional rights short out of fear”. Some of us are more “afraid” of losing our rights than we are of terrorists.

                1. P.P.S. Barack Obama violated the Fourth Amendment rights of hundreds of millions of Americans by way of the NSA, and he should have been impeached for it. The reason he wasn’t was because there were too many Americans who were more afraid of terrorists than they were a president who used the Fourth Amendment as toilet paper. They wouldn’t hold the Commander-in-chief responsible for anything if he claimed he did it to protect us from terrorism. Meanwhile, I’m not aware of any terrorists attacks being thwarted by the NSA, and if there were some, they or the politicians who oversee them would have crowed about it by now.

                2. If they seek and get a warrant then it doesn’t violate anything, right? As long as they didn’t lie on the warrant application that is.

                  1. I wasn’t referring to cases where no warrant was acquired but only to when a warrant has been legally acquired subsequent to a criminal investigation.

                3. Now do 2001.

                  1. 2001? What exactly are you referring to? And why do something that happens almost two decades ago?

                4. A.K.A. The Price of Freedom. Innocents get shot. Criminals get away. Kids are poorly raised. Not everyone is prepared to accept it, or even suggest it, despite the fact that liberty probably produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

            3. I’m talking about using due process to go after people who are willfully violating other people’s rights through conspiracy and as accessories to assault, vandalism, looting, and arson. Investigating those crimes with due process does nothing to infringe on anybody’s right to peacefully protest.

              I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        3. “What he is illustrating in this article is the importance of using good arguments to not dilute your position”

          What a fucking moron

        4. From you’re reasoning there is no justification for any investigation under any circumstances.

    2. yeah, I really don’t get the logic of lefties to claim that vandalism, rioting, and intentional disruption of other’s right to free movement and commerce is in any way a ‘peaceable protest’.

      It’s level 10 gaslighting at its finest.

      1. But in Woke-world there is no private property, and equality of outcomes overrules equal rights.

      2. People go nuts ahead of an election.

        Four years ago, around this time in the election cycle, ENB was linking to a story about a porn star that did bukkake and gangbang videos, who was suing candidate Trump because he greeted her with a kiss on the cheek without asking permission first and she was supposedly traumatized by it.


        They were covering Trump campaign speeches as if they were comparable to the Nuremberg rallies. Whatever happened to Michelle Fields anyway? Did she manage to survive the assault by Trump’s Brownshirts?!

        All of these stories were absurd and ridiculous, were treated with absolute seriousness, and we’ll see the same thing from the same people this time around. Actually, it’ll get worse the closer we get to election day.

      3. Property rights are a massive problem for them. You can’t have the society they want as long as people still have this silly notion that you can own things.

        The destruction of private property is a feature, not a bug. This stopped being about black lives and started being about Marxism months ago.

        1. So we can safely assume that the rightwing thugs murdering people is about legitimizing murder and not property rights.

          1. Have a cite for any rightwing thugs murdering anyone?

            I know of a kid who shot a bunch of commies in self defense, but the facts of that situation are so clear that I find it hard to believe even you could lie about it.

            1. He’s still lying about Sandman and the rest of the Covington kids, why would you be surprised? He’s getting all his talking points from Vox. And just parrots them without any critical thinking skills.

              1. I care about people being executed by agents of the state more than some snot-nosed asshole kid getting his feelings hurt by CNN. Guilty as charged.

                1. people being executed by agents of the state

                  You just can’t not misrepresent, misdirect and lie about shit, can you.

                  1. It’s a lying poster who never argues in good faith, whose sole purpose is to drive clicks by triggering the, “Something Is Wrong On The Internet,” impulse in people.

                    You waste your time engaging with it.

                  2. I miss the days when I was on the same side as libertarians when it came to not trusting the cops.

                    1. That is bullshit you are only suspicious fo cops when it suits your narrative. And all most have said is the evidence doesn’t necessarily support the charge that agents of the government are executing people. On both recent cases there is circumstantial evidence that the narrative isn’t complete.

                    2. Yeah, me too. At this point, I’ll take a few bad apples over your entire poisonous orchard.

                    3. Now do Mueller.

                    4. Tell it to Biden’s cops when they bust you for not capitalizing Black.

                2. Then why did you spend hours Sunday night gas lighting about the Sandman case? You got your ass handed to you and now you are trying to deflect with the “I don’t care” but everyone saw how much you actually do care, as evidenced by 3 hours straight of condemning Sandman.

            2. Actually it was people trying to disarm an active shooter and dying in the process. They’d be your heroes if your brain weren’t so warped by tribal politics.

              1. I’ve never seen an active shooter run from the conflict before. Care to explain why he was doing that if he was there to murder everyone?

                1. Because he already shot someone and then got chased?

                  1. He was running from people before the first shot was fired.

                    Any other lies you need me to address?

                    1. Then surely he has been grossly overcharged and he will walk free after his trial.

                    2. There is a good chance this doesn’t even go to trial. The judge in Illinois has ordered a stay on extradition so she can review the video to determine if evidence exists of first degree murder and the charging DA didn’t even bother to counter file.

                  2. Tell us, Tony, what happened before he shot the first guy?
                    I’ll bet he ran towards his victim screaming “MAGA!” Didn’t he? Or was he chased, had someone throw some unknown object at him, and have someone attempt to violently take his firearm?

                    1. Someone also fired 3 shots into the air from roughly ~50ft behind Rittenhouse while he was running from the first guy he ended up shooting.

                      These people have an awfully odd way of expressing their desire to not get shot.

                  3. His wasn’t the first shot.

                    There were also about nine other shots that did not come from him.

                    …keep forgetting, progs think that you should allow yourself to be killed if the cause is “just”.

                    1. Yeah, I phrased that poorly. He was fleeing before HE fired any shots. There was definitely gunfire in the area prior to his conflict even starting.

                    2. 16 other shots*

              2. Actual Active Shooters:
                -Walk into place
                -Start shooting
                -Don’t stop until out of ammo, everyone else is dead, or they’re killed

                Active Shooters in Tony’s World:
                -Remove graffiti
                -Render first aid to others
                -Have someone try to violently steal their firearm
                -Shoot only the person attempting to violently steal firearm
                -Run away after being threatened again
                -Fall down
                -Shoot person who attempted to render him unconscious or kill him with a skateboard
                -Shoot person who attempted to kill him with a firearm
                -Stand up, put his hands in the air, and attempt to turn himself in to MULTIPLE police officers (all of whom ignore him)
                -Return home and turn himself in to local PD

                1. There’s a lot of willfully dishonest idiots and fifty-centers on this site, but Tony is the worst.

                  1. There used to be a guy just as bad (typed using all caps, everything was a copy-paste he kept saved on his computer, always reversed the meanings of SCOTUS decisions) can’t remember his handle though. I must have suppressed it…

                    1. Sounds like hihn

                    2. Hihn died last month, I read from one of the posters here. I’m sure they’ll re-dig out the obit for you.

                      Can’t say I’ll miss him.

                    3. Chemjeff will fill his shoes appropriately.
                      Hihn is definitely that dude’s future, if he makes it much longer

                  2. They’re the internet version of the wall-of-“moms” used to shield the totalitarian collectivists

                2. He drove from out of state carrying a weapon of war and ended up killing two people and injuring a third. If he were a leftist you’d call that terrorism.

                  1. He drove from out of state carrying a weapon of war and ended up killing two people and injuring a third. If he were a leftist you’d call that terrorism.

                    More irrelevant and outright false talking points. He didn’t cross a state line with a weapon. In fact he went to work in the morning and stayed in that town after work. It’s amazing what left wingers will pretend is a problem. But when they do this it means they don’t have anything real to support their assertions.

                  2. Traveling with a gun isn’t terrorism. Protecting businesses isn’t terrorism. He didn’t go there to intimidate people but to protect property. And as for crossing state lines, he lives right on the border, it isn’t like he drove from Texas. No, if this was a leftist, other than a few diehard conservative trolls, no one would label this terrorism. Another straw man argument Tony.

                  3. Firts, he did NOT drive from out of state carrying a “weapon of war.” The weapon was in Wisconsin the whole time. Second, the Ar-15 is not a weapon of war. Third, I would not call that terrorism UNLESS he was shooting people for the express intent of advancing an ideology…like the guy in Portland who just executed a man.

              3. It’s amazing how easy lying comes to left wingers. Practice makes perfect.

          2. So you are okay with the rioters who have murdered multiple people, including an execution style murder last weekend in Portland?

            1. Before answering, Tony would like to know two things:
              1. What color were they?
              2. What were their political beliefs?

              1. A good portion of those murdered have been blacks themselves and mostly unarmed.

                1. Well, ya, but those are the cops’ fault because we wouldn’t have these perfectly acceptable riots if the cops didn’t shoot people under arguably justifiable circumstances…


  17. I want to know the answer. No, I don’t think there’s a conspiracy. But I do want to know how these professional protestors manage to make a living? I checked, and Starbucks still has all of its baristas, so where are they coming from?

    Are they literally couch surfing and dining in dumpsters to make their way through life? I’m sure some of them are, but all of them? Are they telling their parents they need more money for school and their parents never check?

    It’s one thing for a spontaneous protest to arise in a city full of impressionable and brainwashed youths, but some of these protests have been going on non stop for months. How is that possible? Who is feeding them? Who is clothing them?

    1. “I do want to know how these professional protestors manage to make a living”

      I suspect a lot of it, right now, has to do with unemployment insurance, eviction moratoriums, student loans, $1,200 checks from the government, and the cozy basements of their parents.

      1. That could explain much of the foot soldiers, but not the organizational, nor logistical efforts. Those require people with more resources and something on the ball in terms of leadership and follow through, ie. not your average basement loser.

        At this point to argue that there is no infrastructure or outside funding is a joke.

        1. I’ve been at protests, and the organization rarely ventures further than phoning and emailing friends to show up, plus flyers and stickers. Protesting is a culture, and just as you don’t need a central authority to tell that the clothing style has changed, neither do you need a central authority to let people know that a protest is happening. Especially in a place like Portland.

          1. Did you have bail funds, and snack vans, and a supply corps bringing weapons, water, food, and first aid equipment to the front lines continuously?

            1. Yes- this is a “Culture”.

              Every one of those things except for maybe the bail funds, are completely organic. Bail funds require some sort of payment infrastructure. But it takes nothing for someone to run down to costco and pickup a case of water and boxes of soyganic granola bars. It takes nothing for a bunch of kids to go around a construction yard or old building ripping out bricks and pipes.

              This has been a culture since at least the occupy wall street/main street protests.

              1. How about chartered buses?

                Sorry, I’m not buying that the money people like Sonos aren’t directing this shit.

          2. Was a fancy hotel stay in the picture? A pallet of bricks delivered to your target of choice? Body armor and weapons distributed? If so, time to turn yourself in!

        2. And someone has to charter those buses. That takes planning and isn’t cheap.

      2. I would suspect that, just right now, the question is, who’s fencing the loot. They’ve looted a LOT of stores lately, millions of dollars worth of merchandise. You just know they’re not keeping it in their mothers’ basements, they’re monetizing it.

        The riots may well be self-financing at this point, on the basis of the stuff that’s being stolen during them.

        1. I don’t think the hypothetical organizers would be willing to touch any stolen goods. That’s small beans compared to what they are trying to do. They want trillions in reparations. They wouldn’t take the risk of netting $50 million in stolen goods and the damage it would cause if it got out.

        2. “who’s fencing the loot. They’ve looted a LOT of stores lately, millions of dollars worth of merchandise.”

          A lot of that is probably going up on eBay.

          I’m sure there are professional thieves and opportunists out there taking advantage of riots, and they probably fence that stuff the way they always do.


          There were two waves of riots in Los Angeles in ’92. The first wave was an angry response in the African-American community to the verdict in the Rodney King trial.

          The second happened after the first wave, when people of all races realized that the cops were overwhelmed and weren’t doing or couldn’t do anything about the looting. Suddenly average people (LA average) were smashing the doors open at the local mall to loot it. It was just a shopping spree with 100% off–while supplies last.

          I don’t think a lot of those looters are thinking this through.

          There was a woman I worked with at the hospital during the riots, and her boyfriend took four wave runners and “hid” them in the backyard of the house they were renting. They were spotted by helicopter, and he was arrested. How were you going to sell four wave runners? I don’t think he really thought about it.

          And I don’t think we should necessarily assume that looters are organized or smart–because of what they could do with all that loot. A lot of people are in jail because they aren’t very smart, and the IQ of most looters probably isn’t that high either. Smart people don’t generally need to steal things. The risk/reward calculation doesn’t generally pan out in favor of perpetrating a felony.

          1. Yup. I don’t think a lot of the riots and looting is part of the protests, but rather opportunistic activities by criminals and nihilists.

            The big fault of the protesters, in my book, is their willingness to excuse and even encourage such activities.

            1. How is the person excusing and encouraging looting any different or better than the person looting?

            2. Touched flag by mistake instead of closing popup, very sorry!

      3. I don’t know about Portland but in Kenosia 58% of those arrested were from out of town. that takes time and money. and one band of three cars from out of state was stopped by police after they loaded their cars with gasoline canisters at a local gas station. could it be their own money maybe just like most “militia” “vigilanties” supply their own guns and ammo. I put quotes around Militia and vigilanty since not everyone who wants to defend their city belongs to a militia and vigilante is the correct term but the media uses it as a form of condemnation than the true meaning of being vigilant. its not a crime to defend one property or city

        1. Piling on, who’s chartering busses? Who’s paying these clowns’ medical Bill’s when one of their Molotovs goes awry? Who’s paying for the lawyers?

          Logistics don’t just happen.

          1. It wasn’t a chartered bus. It was a converted school bus where it had a kitchen. They blacked out the lettering on the bus and put “Riot Kitchen” in crappy, graffiti on it. The accompanying mini van was about 20 years old.

            1. Not the only bus that’s been used to ferry protesters around. Take a look at the Mt. Rushmore protests, for one. Or protesting in Atlanta.

        2. Yup. In a mass march in my home town decades ago, over a purely local issue, outsiders were bused in. The locals of both sides were disgusted. We know who bused them in. A certain union with a stake in the local election.

      4. So Trump Checks funding a lot of it. Got it.

        Not, not disparaging Glorious Leader, because obviously he had to put his names on those checks in an effort to stop proggies from cashing them. 5D chess.

    2. How is that possible? Who is feeding them? Who is clothing them?

      Consider the Portland murderer. He’s a “professional” snowboarder which I think means he gives snowboarding lessons which cost ~50-75 / hour and he doesn’t declare any of it so he pays no tax. His girlfriend is probably a teacher or guidance counselor, maybe he moonlights as a landscaper in the summer.

  18. “WOULD GIVE the federal government frightening license to target not just dangerous activists but also mere political opponents of the administration.”

    Hate to tell you, but we’re already there. We’ve been there since 2008.

    Nobody should be on board with this. What we need is the press at major publications investigating this. But, because they’re so beholden to leftist politics and politicians, don’t expect anything. And Trump’s characterization of the media as an enemy of the people will continue to run true.

    1. Was Soave asleep, or getting his hair done, when the IRS started going after conservative nonprofits during the Obama Administration?

      “License to target mere political opponents of the [A]dministration,” Dude, are you for real? Have you been living under a rock?

      1. To Robby, its somehow better when only one party is doing it…an unchecked, corrupt monopoly with no challenger is a freer world to him…

  19. I suspect the government is funding them, to the tune of $600 per person per week…

  20. Why do I need reason when I can get this article from USA Today, just as Robby did? Was he under a deadline and went on a bender and woke up today like OH FUCK I have to turn in an article, let me see what’s in the USA Today? Yes, friends, that crappy newspaper that is free in mediocre hotels across the country.

    Maybe he ended his bender at a Ramada Inn.

    1. He should have tried staying at a Holday Inn so he would be able to realize how fucking dumb this article is.

    2. Shorter Rico: Reason pretends to pay me, I pretend to write.

  21. Thank you for taking the time to publish this information. Nice post sharing. Thank you for your analysis. Looking forward to reading more of your posts. Keep it up…

    No more waste time to searching #HDimages, #PCwallpaper, #smartphone_wallpaper, #socialmedia_banner, #socialmedia_image_post, #natureHDimages, and many more awesome pictures. Just visit All Awesome Pictures Only For Love Hearts and choose your best choice.

  22. “They were also tactically confused: Why shout “say her name” at the senator who introduced a bill named after the “her” in question?”

    Because they are intellectually and emotionally retarded. Like Robby and ENB.

    1. Because they had no idea who he was except that he was leaving the White House where Badorangehitler had given a speech.

      1. Honestly, they wouldn’t have cared if they HAD known.

    2. They were as well-informed and intelligent as the protestors who pulled down a statue of Frederick Douglass.

  23. These bigoted slack-jaws on the right will fall for just about anything.



    Organized superstition.


    The Lost Cause.

    ‘Mexico will build the wall’

    ‘Lock her up’

    ‘Not only will I enable half-educated, unskilled, backwater white clingers to prosper . . . but I will cause them to do so at the expense of the accomplished, credentialed, literate “elites” they resent.’

    These clingers can’t be replaced fast enough.

    1. The world must seem a pretty dark place looking out unemployed living in your mom’s basement. You should work on that. Try getting a job and paying your own way. Surely, you can do something productive.

      1. He may well be a basement dweller but as usual to fail to address anything on that list.

        1. *you fail to

        2. You’re going to white knight for one of the most tired trolls on this site? For shame.

    2. First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.

      When you say ‘cabal’ and ‘myth’ do you mean as in the Steele Dossier, Fusion GPS, the FISA court, the FBI, and Russian Collusion? Or do you mean ‘cabal’ and ‘myth’ as in Antifa, BLM, the hundreds of corporate donors who openly support BLM, and rioting and destruction of which Antifa and BLM are actively participating?

      Because this phrase, to me, just demonstrates that you either don’t know what a conditional phrase is and what the words ‘cabal’ or ‘myth’ means or your a plain hack. Given the credence you gave to the Blasey-Ford *myth* the evidence would suggest all of the above.

      1. You forgot to mention the myth from the Republican controlled Senate which released a report on August 18, 2020 detailing The Trump campaign connection to Russia.

        1. I haven’t read it, do you have a good summary. I’d lay odds its not bad for Pres. Trump, otherwise it would be on CNN 24/7.

          1. It is from a NYT story in which one of the ex Mueller lawyers (hardly pro-Trump accomplices) states they totally misrepresented what they (the NYT) investigation found.

          2. The DNC will pin underpants-gnome-level tenuous shit to their flag.
            If they’re not squealing about it then it didn’t say what M4E is pretending it did.

        2. The one stating no criminal connections to Russia?

      2. Making a donation to BLM is not the same thing as funding riots. Surely you are more honest than that.

    3. QAnon is a meme cooked up at 4Chan to make people who take it seriously look stupid.

      Congratulations on being the butt of the joke.

      1. They all know that, but just like with Pepe the Frog and the Okay handsign they’re not going to miss a chance to shout about The Other.

    4. “”These clingers can’t be replaced fast enough.””

      By the co-author of the 1994 crime bill, and someone who defended bad cops when she was locking people up.
      Biden is now trying to out do Trump with tough talk regarding rioters.

      Is that your idea of winning the culture war?

  24. The rioters have a small army of attorneys working for them to make sure they don’t get punished.

    1. Agreed and we should start looking into the lawyers defending the 17 year in Kenosha who shot three people killing two. Who paying for the defense of this thug who traveled across state lines with a weapons he did not have a legal right to have on his person. Who was outside in violation of a curfew.

      1. “”Who was outside in violation of a curfew.””

        Well that will get you on the group W bench.

      2. Who paying for the defense of this thug who traveled across state lines with a weapons he did not have a legal right to have on his person. Who was outside in violation of a curfew.

        Isn’t it revealing how extremists continue carping on these nonsense issues? If this guy was in violation of curfew so is every protester, yet there is no criticism of them. He was in one suburb he worked in but the propagandists try to make it seem like he traveled in from Alabama. Meanwhile has no criticism of rioters who came from elsewhere.

        What pathetically transparent propaganda.

        1. So this 17 year-old was a business owner protecting his property?

          1. He was a volunteer, who was helping protect a nearby community. It’s called being a good neighbor in most of the country. We don’t just worry about ourselves.

            1. He is a murdering terrorist. You people used to argue that it was good and proper to attempt to disarm an active shooter. Now you’re making fun of the dead hero for not being armed enough to get the job done.

              1. Yes Tony, anyone who shows up to stop the rioters is a terrorist. Now tell us again how you don’t support looting and rioting? Sure it is bad and all but people who defend themselves or try to stop it are worse. That is your position right now.

                1. Someone shooting at a crowd for ideological reasons is a terrorist. I guess we’ll have to settle for first-degree murder in this case.

                  Before this gets out of hand, realize that the guy already shot someone before the events in the video you saw.

                  1. “Shooting at a crowd” isn’t even something SUBJECTIVE that you could come to as a conclusion.

                    He shot EXACTLY three people. The ONLY people who attacked him, including the first guy (a convicted felon) who attempted to violently steal his firearm (in the process, violating curfew and attacking a minor)

                    You’re such a mendacious idiot.

                    1. So he was there to enforce a curfew.

                    2. No, he was there after curfew, the same as the rioters. No one denies that. It’s a non-sequitor argument.

                    3. He didn’t even enforce anything fuckwit. What do you feel lying gets you?

                  2. He didn’t shoot at a crowd for ideological reasons he tried to escape from the crowd and only shot specific individuals who presented a danger to him. He had multiple loaded magazines. He didn’t indiscriminately start firing and he actually stopped shooting as soon as each threat was eliminated. He could easily have shot the wounded guy again after he disarmed him, but he didn’t. In fact he initially stopped aiming at the guy when he lowered his pistol (the wounded one) but fired as soon as the guy attempted to aim the pistol at him. You are completely misrepresenting what happened. The video evidence is clear. And don’t get your hopes up on 1st degree murder, if you read the DA’s filing, the DA admits the kid was being pursued by the crowd being assaulted by them, and only fired when he was cornered the first time and then he called the police to turn himself in and was trying to reach the cops when the mob came after him. He still didn’t fire until he tripped and the second person killed started hitting him in the head with an improvised club (a skateboard) and only after he told him to stop and the guy kept hitting him. He then engaged that guy, but no one else until the third guy ran up with a pistol. The third guy lowered the pistol, and Kyle lowered his rifle. The third guy then swung the pistol (and his friend verified his intent was to “unload his pistol into him (Kyle)”). At no point did he indiscriminately fire into the crowd.

                    1. Kyle was an active shooter and shot people attempting to disarm him. In your scenario a school shooter has a right to shoot a teacher attempting to disarm him. As for the person with the pistol, he was doing what the NRA said to do, that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy.

                    2. They tried to kill him, not disarm him, you dishonest fuck. But of course you knew that. Your just here to lie.

                      I hope every city becomes filled with a million Kyles.

                    3. That isn’t what happened. One guy even admitted he wanted to kill Kyle. And beating him in the head with a skateboard is not trying to disarm him. Is this now Vox talking points after everyone has seen the video of him being chased, even by the first guy? And why did the first guy “want to disarm him when kyle hadn’t committed any crimes, hadn’t become aggressive and was trying to retreat? Fuck, that is bullshit.

                    4. And this is nothing like a school shooting, he didn’t go there to shoot anyone, didn’t shoot until they pursued him, only shot those who represented danger and at all times he was trying to retreat and not be confrontational. The mob didn’t let him.

                    5. And he wasn’t an active shooter. He didn’t indiscrim

                    6. He didn’t indiscriminately shoot anyone. In fact the video proves he was trying to get away even before he shot the first guy. He was trying to get away. The mob pursued him. He wasn’t shooting anyone until he became cornered while trying to escape. That isn’t any legal active shooter by any definition of the word. Keep gas lighting. Thanks for giving us the new talking points from Vox, after the first talking points have been discredited. These ones are just as easy to discredit based on common sense and the video and legal precedence.

                    7. Also, they didn’t just try to disarm him. They purposely cut him off from his group and chased him down. They targeted him. Even if they were trying to disarm him, they had no reason and they don’t appear to give any indication that that was their aim. Also he presented to no danger to them as he was running from them after the singled him out. There were multiple others in his group who were similarly armed and they didn’t try to “disarm them” by seperating them and chasing them.

                    8. And he didn’t do as the NRA suggests. He approached Kyle, with his arms wide and the gun pointed away. Kyle lowered his rifle and then the guy lifted his pistol and aimed it at Kyle, who shot him once. The NRA would not defend this guy’s actions which were plainly meant to deceive Kyle into letting his guard down so that he could execute Kyle. The NRA only advises to shoot until the person is no longer a threat. Kyle had lowered his rifle and the guy then tried to kill him (and per his friend that was his entire aim was to kill Kyle).

                    9. Moderation4ever
                      September.1.2020 at 2:51 pm
                      Kyle was an active shooter and shot people attempting to disarm him. In your scenario a school shooter has a right to shoot a teacher attempting to disarm him.

                      This is probably the stupidest thing ever written on this board.

                      the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy.

                      Luckily it worked and the good guy won. It’s a shame it came to the left resorting to violence because people reject their crazy plans at the ballot box.

                  3. Before this gets out of hand, realize that the guy already shot someone before the events in the video you saw.

                    Spoken like someone doesn’t know both events are on video. Rittenhouse shot that person in self defense as well. It’s amazing what one can conclude if you simply pretend the facts aren’t what they are.

                    Someone shooting at a crowd for ideological reasons is a terrorist. I guess we’ll have to settle for first-degree murder in this case.

                    Not in this case, but this certainly describes Michael Forest Reinoehl. Unsurprisingly BLM protesters cheered when they heard of the murder. I wonder why left wingers like yourself are so eager to lie about on event while remaining completely silent about the other.

                    1. Then I’m sure he’ll be found not guilty in his trial.

                    2. It is very likely it won’t even go to trial. The DA basically admits self defense in the filings, and isn’t even fighting the stay in extradition that was imposed by an Illinois judge on Monday. This seems like the DA charged for purely political reasons but realized he can’t win.

                    3. Tony
                      Then I’m sure he’ll be found not guilty in his trial.

                      It’s interesting you won’t mention BLM cheering on murder. They are unequivocally guilty of what you pretend your opponents are bit not a peep from you. Even death you only oppose when it suits your partisanship.

                  4. I’ve finally figured out who Tony is. He’s a sock-puppet for some fan of Goebbels and Bagdad Bob, trying to make Goebbels look honest and Bob look like an effective propagandist by comparison.

              2. Hahaha. You’re serious? Hahaha.

                We are Farmers. Bum bi di da di bum bum bum.

          2. You must be asking irrelevant questions because you know the answers to relevant ones do not support your partisan driven preferred outcome.

      3. The lawyers are working pro bono that’s already been established. And he did have a GoFundMe site until they closed it down for no reason. So the funding is fairly transparent. Buy keep trying your stupid Whataboutism.

      4. Another no-information basement dweller. Try to keep up. Better yet, keep up the ignorance.

  25. Exactly how do we know that this “secret cabal” thing is a myth?

    I mean, there are several national groups that are extremely well funded who have been publicly talking about these things for months. So, exactly why is it unreasonable to think that the groups that were created for this purpose, raised money for this purpose and openly talk about these projects might actually have some involvement in these projects.

    I know you are not suggesting that these protests are entirely spontaneous and completely without coordination. I mean, that would be ludicrous to even suggest.

    I don’t know that anyone is suggesting that these are all paid agitators, like union thugs from the 1920’s.

    But where is the evidence that the people who are raising funds for the protests and who have spent years talking about exactly this kind of action taking place and who specifically affiliate themselves with these causes are not actually involved? I mean, I get that if you label it a “secret cabal” and construct some sort of Rothschild-esque conspiracy theory you can lampoon the notion of a secret society of puppet masters controlling the actions of millions of zombie hive mind pawns… but is there any evidence that the groups who proclaim themselves to be the intellectual fathers of this sort of action and who raise money on that label are not actually involved?

    1. To be clear: If he was really confident there’s no coordination and funding behind the rioters, he wouldn’t mind the feds looking. He’s afraid of them looking because there probably IS something to find.

      1. Spoken like a true libertarian.

        1. Yeah, no. The fact that there is evidence of coordination to break the laws, to conduct violence and riots makes this a violation of the NAP. So therefore an investigation into who is coordinating and funding it is perfectly in line with Libertarian principles. We aren’t anarchist.

          1. I was referring to the sentiment that you shouldn’t mind the feds poking around if you have nothing to hide.

            1. No one asserted that. They asserted that there appears to be some organization and evidence of planning and funding and therefore it should be looked into. No one said if you have nothing to hide. Another straw man Tony.

            2. And Brett’s assertion wasn’t exactly that either, it was a criticism of Robby’s assertion, that if Robby is so sure that there is no coordination an investigation would prove him right. Unless you are arguing that Robby is part of the cabal (mythical or not) Brett is not saying if Robby has nothing to hide. This was specifically in regards to Robby’s assertion (and USAToday’s) that this is a myth and therefore shouldn’t be investigated. However, as Brett and others have pointed out there is circumstantial evidence that may very well warrant a federal investigation, because of specific circumstances. Not carte blanche investigations but a specific investigation based upon mounting circumstantial evidence. If Robby and USAToday truly believe this was a myth they would welcome an investigation. Maybe Robby is being principled, but the evidence that this is a myth isn’t clear.

    2. Isn’t “secret cabal” redundant?

  26. the only problem with investigating is that its not a crime to donate to organizations unless there is actually stated this money is for criminal purposes.

    1. I’m pretty sure that argument doesn’t hold up for other terrorist organizations.

      1. but Antifa and BLM are the correct terrorist organizations. Sarc off. Serious questions
        1.don’t they have to be convicted or listed as terrorist organizations? and if so
        2. Then how can all these corporations that are donating to BLM legally already donate to BLM?

    2. True, but if an investigation shows that the fund are being used for crimes. Then the organization can be investigated for how many knew that’s what the funds were being used for crimes and start charging people left, right, and center.

      1. Well, the money can be frozen, or seized, depending on what is found

        Until the next Barry O comes along and unfreezes it

  27. The point is that it’s too organized to be disorganized. Someone is directing traffic and that’s a perfectly valid question to ask.

    We already know Soros writes a lot of the paychecks. You’re not stupid enough to think these people are creating organizations on their own dime, are you?

    1. Soros has publicly donated $220 million to Black equality groups in the last 3 months. It’s not a stretch to assume that other donations have not been publicized.

    2. The point is that it’s too organized to be disorganized.

      It’s very loosely organized. There’s a large group of people who outline and publicize ideas on how to proceed. But they don’t have organizations they order to follow them. Instead they publicize the ideas through the alternative media and the foot soldiers decide how they want to participate. Most of the idea people are in academia and education and “volunteer” with NGO organizations to get their ideas into the alt-world.

      This is what activism is.

      1. And the weapons and the supplies just happen to show up coincidentally

        1. The people who decide to engage in rioting organize themselves into cells and arm themselves. Antifa provides tactical training including what kind of gear to bring.

      2. And yet all their resources are identical. Funny how that works out.

        It’s not even an open secret, it’s just common sense. Soros isn’t writing individual checks to John Q Sample. There are organizations facilitating the logistics of these riots.

  28. Maby we should listen to the people that say they are funding it? It’s public record that kamala cuntrag is funding bail for rioters, and most major corporations are pouring money into antifa and blm. This is a pretty easy investigation. It’s like whe my friend asked why do I think the cdc is lying to you I responded with “because they said they were lying”

  29. The taxpayers are funding the mostly peaceful protesters.
    Where do you think the extra 600 a week (now reduced to an extra 300 a week) has been going?

    1. Yup, that brick through your window is just your tax dollars at work.

  30. This article does not mention riots (it’s from 2019). NYC funds “community organizations” which organize protests. Since large protests require a larger police presence which also costs money, it looks like a decent money-making arrangement. Many millions coming from the city, joined by funding from The Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation…


    1. So, RICO the f** put of them. Charge them with conspiracy and accessory to murder. Worst of all, revoke their exempt status!

      1. Tax-exempt. I know I typed tax last time. These new popups are not helping my headache.

  31. First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.

    Notice the strawman. It’s important to understand the funding, but Robbie wants us to believe that since it is not controlled by a cabal it must not exist. What an embarrassment.

    The plan is to find out where the money is coming from, but we already know. These people are employed in education and NGO institutions so they’re using the taxpayers funds which support these institutions. So the plan should be to identify these people and their employers and start asking why those organizations fund domestic terrorists. If those organizations choose to defend their decision we should defund them.

  32. This article ignores the difference between protesters and criminals who burn and loot private property. If we expect internal defense from our various levels of government we should find out ways to stop criminals. This means finding out who/if the criminals in the street are being funded To ignore the fact it may be happening is itself criminal. It is the dog that’s not barking is the one we need to be stopping. The question is why not?

    1. +1

      The legitimate purpose of law enforcement is to protect our rights from criminals, and if there are criminals out there violating our rights in an organized way, then it is the legitimate purpose of government to identify them and bring them to trial for their crimes.

      1. The main purpose of law enforcement is to protect white people from black people, historically speaking.

        1. So when the first organized modern police force, in London during the 18th century, was organized it’s entire purpose was to protect whites from the virtually non-existent black community? The population of blacks in London during the 18th century was so small as to barely even exist. The NYPD is the oldest organized police department and it was founded to combat growing crime in the migrant communities, most of whom weren’t black. The US Marshals are the oldest federal police agency, and they were founded to enforce federal court warrants, most of which were issued against whites, as the number of free blacks at the time was fairly small. One of the most famous Marshals of the 19th century was Bass Reeves, a former slave who arrested over 3000 prisoners on federal warrants, they were all ethnicities. The Texas Rangers were founded to protect the settlers from Indian raids and after Texas Independence to patrol the Mexican American border. They got into law enforcement after the Civil war to deal with rampant crime along the border area. Most of the fugitives they went after were white or Hispanic. The same with the Arizona Rangers. Most frontier policing was down to protect local businesses and families (from the Ohio country to the gold fields of California, the Rockies and Alaska, to the cattle towns in Kansas and Missouri). Once again you parrot an easily discredited, vastly historically inaccurate talking point.

        2. Now if you want to talk about gun control, that isn’t even debatable most gun control laws were originally aimed at keeping blacks from owning guns. And for the most part, they still restrict blacks more than whites. And the poor more than the wealthy.

          1. Also, the minimum wage, union protection laws, drug and alcohol prohibition, occupational licensing laws, building codes and development codes, etc. In fact much of the New Deal was aimed at keeping blacks and minorities down while promoting whites. And they almost all successfully did that.

            1. I’ve actually been wondering lately how much of gentrification development is by well-connected, out of area people who can grease those skids with name dropping or other money… things the locals have been priced out of.

              It’s not that blacks don’t want better for their communities, but that they’ve been deliberately cock blocked by city codes that are then waived for other people.

              1. I’ve felt for a very long time that people like Tony see racism everywhere because they themselves are secretly the biggest racist and they feel guilty about it, so the project onto other people. They can’t believe that most people don’t really care about skin color (yes everyone is a little tribalist, it’s natural but most people don’t act on it).

                1. They (progressives) have always reminded me of the ex their/drug addict/felon who finds Christ and then becomes the biggest Bible thumpers. And my experience is many of them turn out to be hypocrites.

                2. This is America, racism is everywhere. We have our own special unique brand of it born of a decision to enslave only people from a certain part of the world with a certain color skin.

                  Yada yada yada, the president is endorsing the both state murder and vigilante murder of protesters for black rights.

                  1. We have our own special unique brand of it born of a decision to enslave only people from a certain part of the world with a certain color skin.

                    Yep, no other people or nation EVER enslaved Africans. It was totally unique to this part of the world.

                    1. And it wasn’t like African slaves were being imported to the western colonies for almost 200 years before Jamestown was founded.

                    2. I should have said 100 years.

                  2. Slavery is not unique to America. And it wasn’t started by Americans, even African slavery. It was started by other Africans and brought to America by Spaniards in the Caribbean, Central and South America. It was long established, almost two hundred years, before Jamestown was founded.
                    Also, the case isn’t murder as has been explained multiple times to you today. And there is a unique form of racism, it’s the white guilt progressive, white savior racism that your side loves to practice in. It is a paternalistic form of racism where white progressives feel like they need to “save and protect” black people and that blacks can’t get ahead unless whites allow them to and whites have to give something up because blacks can’t succeed on their own. Glad you realize how racist white progressivism is.

                    1. My bad 100 years.

          2. they still restrict blacks more than whites

            Systemic something.

        3. Someone’s been reading too much 1619 Project.

    2. This article ignores the difference between protesters and criminals who burn and loot private property.

      Organizationally there is no difference. The same funding supports both activities, and the same leadership directs both. The left revealed this when police took steps against rioters and they claimed these steps were against protesters. It was interesting to watch the people who first made such a big deal about the distinction accidentally reveal it didn’t exist.

      It was a Kinsley Reveal, the first cousin to a Kinsley Gaffe.

      1. ^^THIS^^

        They are all rioters. It is just some are there to break things and harm people and others are there to act as human shields against the police.

      2. So you have absolutely no respect for the first amendment. What good are you people, again?

        1. Tony the 1st Amendment doesn’t include the riot to riot.

          And I honestly never thought I would live to see the day when mobs of white people burned down black owned businesses. But, here it is happening in Portland.


          But hey, you keep defending Antifa and pretending they are protesting and not rioting. Good luck with that Tony. Just keep defending and lying for these people. Maybe Trump will send you a thank you note for your efforts in his re-election campaign.

          1. Civilization requires us to make the distinction, even if it’s hard.

            1. Everyone is making the distinction Tony except you. We all know the distinction. It is only you that is pretending people burning shit town and assaulting people are protesting. They are not.

              A mob of woke white people burning down a black dentist’s office. That is the Democratic Party of 2020. Aren’t you so proud to be a part of that Tony?

              1. So proud. You know me, always defending arson.

                Now tell me why it’s OK for rightwing radicals to shoot protesters. I realize leftist lives aren’t as important as dentist offices.

                1. You are defending arson right now. You are saying they are protesters. Trying to change the subject doesn’t make your position and your defending of arson any less obvious. Moreover, your caling anyone who tries to defend themselves from the mob “a right wing murderer” just reinforces your support for and defense of arson and looting. In your mind, the arsonists and looters are not the criminals, they are protesters protected by the 1st Amendment. In your mind, the people who are trying to defend themselves are the criminals.

                  Again, this is the Democratic Party in 2020. At least you are finally being honest. So there is that.

                  1. Nobody is defending criminal activity except Donald Trump.

                    1. Where? And yes you are. You are defending them with straw mans (what if he had been in a school) and Whataboutism, (what about a right wing we shooting people ignore the execution in Portland this weekend, ignore the mother who was slain for saying all lives matter, ignore the unarmed black Trump supporter killed, or the retired unarmed black police captain and the numerous other cases).

                    2. Nobody is defending criminal activity

                      Anyone who claims we must allow criminal activity because it’s less bad than killing someone is defending criminal activity. But rational thought has never been in your skill set.

                    3. Yes, it is less bad to lose a Whataburger than it is to lose a life.

                      This is not obvious to people who value certain lives less than property. But then that’s why these protests are about in the first place.

                    4. Tony
                      Yes, it is less bad to lose a Whataburger than it is to lose a life.

                      Nobody disputed that. But the issues is your claim you’re not defending criminal activity, yet here you are doing it again.

                      This is not obvious to people who value certain lives less than property.

                      There are no such people. Reasonable people oppose both. People who pretend one must preclude the other are lying as part of their support for criminal activity. Worse, they know this escalation will lead to more deaths (something like 20-25 protest deaths so far), which means they support both arson and deaths as long as they further left wing partisan goals.

                    5. Yes, it is less bad to lose a Whataburger than it is to lose a life..

                      Except it wasn’t a fucking fast-food joint, you obtuse dickhead, it was a dentist’s office.

                      That was someone’s livelihood, and your allies torched it.

                      You want to know why people are increasingly wanting to see your allies get curb-stomped and why public support for police presence has barely nudged? It’s because of shit like this. When normies see that your side explodes into torching cities when some asshole shoots a guy and then kills himself because he didn’t want to get caught by the cops, it sends a pretty clear message that this isn’t about police brutality. When normies see your side agitating for violence and insurrection, it sends a pretty clear message that this isn’t about police brutality. When normies see black activists arguing that they should be allowed to commit violence with impunity, it sends a pretty clear message that this isn’t about police brutality.

                    6. Tony, now do the at least 14 people killed by the rioters, including an unarmed man executed on Saturday in Portland. Why won’t you condemn those. I’ve asked you multiple times today and yesterday. All you condemn is this kid and not your tribe. You try memory holing the unarmed blacks killed by the rioters and the unarmed woman killed by rioters and the unarmed conservative Saturday. Those cases aren’t even remotely self defense. Yet you only focus on Kyle, why?

                  2. He is also defending attempted murder on multiple occasions by arson.

                2. It’s OK to shoot someone in self-defense regardless of the politics of anyone involved.

                  1. The subtleties of self-defense law, one of my favorites.

                    If the guy had stared shooting up a school and someone tried to disarm him, would you consider that a violation of his right to self-defense?

                    1. But he didn’t. Straw man and he didn’t shoot until he was chased and had projectiles hurled at him, even during the first shooting.


                    3. That will come out in court, I’m sure.

                      I think bringing an AR-15 to a protest is itself a threat of violence, but I realize that opinion will go nowhere fast here.

                    4. I think bringing an AR-15 to a protest is itself a threat of violence,

                      It’s revealing you pretend this when left wingers have brought these weapons to protests and riots without criticism by you. Do you have one single tenet not driven entirely by partisanship?

                    5. I think bringing an AR-15 to a protest is itself a threat of violence, but I realize that opinion will go nowhere fast here.

                      Considering your allies were also armed with guns (including Bicep Boy who got turned into a lefty by St. Kyle), you don’t really have much of a leg to stand on here.

                      Too bad the city residents taking potshots at the protesters didn’t have Kyle’s steady, judicious aim.

                    6. He wasn’t protesting. He was standing by a business defending it. The protestors came to him. Big difference.

                    7. And it is evident how you keep moving the goal posts after each of your previous talking points have been destroyed, Tony.

                3. What about the execution of a conservative in Portland. Or the numerous other people (many minorities) by the rioters? Why do you focus on only one incident and ignore all the other incidents?

              2. If I give you $50 and you buy gas and burn down a dentist’s office I’m culpable?

                1. If someone can demonstrate that a reasonable person would have known that all or some of the money would be going towards purchasing the implements for a crime. Then yes, you would be culpable.

                2. What’s the problem with identifying the organizations which fund burnings of dentist offices so people can choose whether or not to donate to them in the future?

                3. If you spent 95 days going to various gas stations and setting them on fire, yes.

        2. So you have absolutely no respect for the first amendment.

          I see you have no ability to think, only to claim everything you dislike is somehow unconstitutional.

  33. “First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.”

    Sorry, I missed the citation. As someone who never went to journalism school, I would be so stupid as to look up the filings of all the ‘charities’ funding the bails, and the lawyers, and follow the corporations that donate openly and publicly to BLM.org, and the other groups involved, and research the board members other activities, and report some actual facts instead of platitudes excusing the socialist riots.
    But since that is a myth, I guess that kind of research is impossible.

    1. Didn’t the NBA players just shake down the owners for a few million dollars to go to BLM?

      1. Yep. The happiest place on earth is happy to be hosting a group of open racists and funding the most virulent anti-family, marxist organization to openly declare the hate the USA.
        Annual passes canceled.

  34. The notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.

    Maybe, maybe not. But is investigating this any more of a waste of time/ money than spending several months on a Quixotic quest to, say, impeach a president?

  35. We all funded them, to the tune of $600/week through the end of July.

  36. The problem with right wing conspiracies is that they don’t hold up to scrutiny. What did we find out about Fast and Furious, nothing, about the IRS scandal, nothing, Benghazi, nothing. Look at the Trump campaign and administration, count the convictions, Flynn, Manafort, Stone, etc. . I say put your investigative money where it yields results.

    1. If this isn’t sarcasm . . . well done.

      1. probably Mod’s finest work.

    2. “”What did we find out about Fast and Furious, nothing””

      Wrong. We found out that the AG can ignore a subpoena.

      1. And that a president can exercise executive privilege over requested documents.

    3. Top kek.

  37. >>People engaged in militant, far-left activism may travel from city to city, and they may be loosely connected with other activists in a semi-organized fashion, but they probably aren’t sitting on some secret pile of money.

    the guy who is pays for them.

  38. The notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.

    So was the notion of the ‘deep state’. So was the Obama Administration using the US’ internal security apparatus to spy on an election rival. So were CIA black sites. So was ‘Fast and Furious’. So was the NSA metadata collecting operation.

    1. Also, why shouldn’t law enforcement look into the funding? Either these people are footing their own bills – fine – or they’re part of a conspiracy to riot.

      1. Or are you doing the ‘motte-and-bailey’ where you conflate ‘peaceful protesters’ and ‘rioters’ and move back and forth between them in order to continue to blur the lines between civil disobedience and looting and arson?

    2. In any case, how many years did we waste looking for a ‘Russian connection’?

  39. So, as a result, the Leftist non-profits and their “peaceful protest” minions can continue to riot and loot at their sole discretion. Since the early to mid-1970’s the Tides Foundation has been a large source for the Left to launder money (see below) in order to finance groups like the ones stoking and supporting the riots and looting. They then grabbed control of other nonprofits like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations in addition to starting others too. This being the case, it certainly is legal and moral to investigate the funding sources since they’re involved in financing terrorist activities using the U.S, tax code. Free speech and privacy are null and void when your organization is involved in aiding and abetting people involved in mayhem that involves destruction of private property and doing physical and even mental harm (like yelling obscenities seeking to intimidate) to others.


  40. The federal government is going to look bad when it turns out their federal extra unemployment benefits are funding the riots.

  41. There is no need for an investigation because robby has deemed it a myth.

  42. I would think that people who avail themselves of a Koch-funded propaganda apparatus would appreciate the value of big money backing free speech. I would think, rather, if I didn’t know libertarians so well. What a perfect hero you have in Rand Paul, whole first inconvenience sees him call for the nanny state to help.

    1. https://twitter.com/selfdeclaredref/status/1300677689918083072

      Are those people in Portland burning down that dentist office and the apartments above it, “Koch funded Propaganda” Tony?

      Donald Trump thanks you for your efforts to make his opponents look as stupid, dishonest, and violent as humanly possible.

      1. It says right there that there may not be any apartments. Clean your room and sit up straight, John.

        1. So, they are just burning down a dentist’s office. Yeah, Tony that makes it totally okay. Good to know where you stand on arson; it is great as long as it is a black owned business.

          1. I’m pretty sure if I mentioned the rightwing thugs committing murder you would make excuses for them, so let me know if you want to talk about how crime should be redressed or if you want to just see your political opponents die.

            1. No Tony I wouldn’t. But even if I did, that wouldn’t make you any better. You won’t even repudiate these people. This is who you and every other Democrat is.

              1. I repudiate unlawful property destruction. I am a terrible Marxist, truth be told.

                1. No you don’t Tony. You keep calling them protesters. You are not repudiating anything.

                  1. Well that settles it. Either I agree with you that anyone you disagree with should be collectively punished for the crimes of a few, or I support those crimes.

                    1. So you condemn BLM and Antifa? They are the ones rioting and looting. So, come on say it, BLM is a bad organization that hijacked a worthy cause.

                      Say that and I will believe that you don’t support arson.

                    2. Link to where BLM expressed support for any criminal activity.

                    3. I didn’t ask for random individuals with kook views. If that’s evidence of something the movement is about, then I’m sure you wouldn’t object to me collectively tarring rightwing counterprotesters with the musings of some of their more radical brethren. You want that? Think that would look pretty for you?

                      It is true that framing it as a defense of property above all else is part of white supremacy. Property may be the primary means by which whites maintain power over blacks. They once actually owned blacks, not to put a fine point on it.

                      But I’m not yet at a point where I can say property destruction is helpful to any good cause.

                    4. Tony, none of the people in these links have been condemned by anyone in BLM. BLM has never disowned any of their actions or done anything to distance itself. And there are hundreds of examples of this. The one in DC when the people attacked the diners was condemned by the mayor. But national BLM never disavowed it much less condmend it.

                      You are just giving a bullshit no true Scotsman fallacy here. If I show anything bad, you just claim that is not really BLM. That would work except that it is BLM and BLM embraces and endorsed all of this activity.

                      And you do too. You won’t condemn it and are willing to lie to excuse it.

                    5. Trump wouldn’t condemn the guy who murdered to people. He’s the president!

                    6. Trump has never refused to condemn a murderer. You are just lying Tony. Meanwhile, thanks for conceding the point about BLM. So, are you going to condemn them or not?

                    7. Trump tried for a week to get Biden on record as not condemning violence on the left.

                      Biden then simply condemned the riots.

                      Trump, as of right now, is flagrantly not condemning his supporter who killed two people. I mean what the fuck. Must be the mini-strokes.

                    8. He isn’t condemning the kid because the evidence supports self defense. False dichotomy. Why condemn someone for murder when it appears it was self defense?

  43. Reason, can we please be better than the “hyperlink evidence” technique we see on the display here? The claim “the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth” is not evidenced by the article cited in the hyperlink on the word myth. That is a USA Today article from June specifically about not finding evidence about specific internet claims about one man, George Soros. It does not disprove the wider claim that the sentence using it as a citation in this piece claims.

    1. The article also presents the strawman that the riots must be funded by a coordinated cabal or not funded at all. The truth is that they are being funded by multiple groups who are acting with varying degrees of coordination.

    2. At least they used an outside source, instead of the typical circular citing back to a prior Reason article.

      1. I’ve gone down that rabbithole a few times, where the author presents as “evidence” some argument that author has previously made, rather than citing facts.

  44. So who is paying to bus in “protesters”? I’ve seen several reports of the same guys “protesting” in different parts of the county.

  45. Since anyone funding the criminal activity at issue must know that it can only harm Democrats politically, it’s logical to assume that the damage is being caused by rightwing agitators. Prove me wrong! Absence of evidence of my conspiracy theory is part of the conspiracy. It’s just science.

    1. Since anyone funding the criminal activity at issue must know that it can only harm Democrats politically, it’s logical to assume that the damage is being caused by rightwing agitators.

      Keep telling yourself that Tony. The people doing this don’t care that it is harming the Democrats. They are hardcore leftists who want to take over the country. They don’t give a shit if Joe Biden wins.

      Dumb asses like you who have spent the last 50 years enabling and excusing the far left created this monster. And it is now consuming you. And even as it eats you and gets Trump re-elected, you still can’t bring yourself to admit the truth. Literally, the last thing that goes through your head before the pick ax the Antifa thug drives through your skull will be “but Republicans were worse”. You are pathetic Tony. You really are.

      1. Well I’m on Biden’s side, not violent leftists. I’m glad we agree that there’s a distinction. Someone needs to tell Trump to work harder to get you to blur the lines in your mind. Otherwise you might not be sufficiently distracted from the hundreds of thousands of dead and the tens of millions of jobs lost on his watch.

        1. Biden’s staff and his VP nominee support the rioters and Antifa. So, he is on their side too. If you claim not to be on these people’s side, then do something to stand up to them. Demand the Democratic DAs in St. Louis, Portland, and Minneapolis prosecute rioters. Demand the mayor and governor in Portland allow the police department to restore order.

          You won’t do any of that. Why? Because you are incapable of attacking anyone on the left. You just can’t do it. So, you will mouth platitudes while the Democratic Party allows the far left to burn down American cities. Like every other Democrat, you are a coward. You won’t stand up to the bad elements in your own party and have allowed them to take it over and destroy it.

          1. So Biden and the arsonists are the same. Gotcha.

            Actually I think the state should have to work really hard to prove someone guilty of a crime and then throw those individuals responsible into cages only after they have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But I’m just a loony leftist Antifa thug!

            1. Biden’s staff donated to bail the arsonists out. Biden clearly supports that or he would have fired them. Imagine if Trump staffers donated to bail out someone from the evil alt right. You would have a fucking stroke. And for once in your life you would have a point.

              Harris told Colbert in so many words that the riots were just and were going to go on past the election. And she also tweeted asking people to donate the the organization that funds the bail for the rioters.

              So, given that Biden has never criticized any of that, how can you say he is not pro rioter?

              Actually I think the state should have to work really hard to prove someone guilty of a crime and then throw those individuals responsible into cages only after they have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But I’m just a loony leftist Antifa thug!

              Democrats all over the country are not doing that. They are refusing to prosecute. So, why don’t you ever criticize them for it? You don’t fool anyone Tony. You do the same thing Joe from Lowell used to do. You will condemn things in the abstract when you are forced to do so. But you will never condemn a specific Democrat for a specific act no matter how bad it is or how what you say should require it.

              I would call you a liar but you actually are not lying. This is how you rationalize your politics to yourself. It is sad and pathetic. But it is what Democrats do. Meanwhile, the far left that you lie for and rationalize continue to burn loot and murder in your party’s name.

              1. Some members of the campaign individually donated to a non-controversial charity meant to pay bail costs of protesters.

                Trump is overseeing the destruction of the American experiment.

                1. Some members of the campaign individually donated to a non-controversial charity meant to pay bail costs of protesters.

                  They bailed out violent criminals and people charged with murder, arson and assaulting the police. The fact that you think that is non controversial and think people charged with murder and arson are “protesters” proves the point that you think murder and arson are okay as long as your side does it.

                  Thanks for playing dumb ass.

                  1. So surely the charity they donated to was considered a radical and destructive force by neutral observers and not a do-gooder outfit nobody found controversial until someone told you to think that way.

                    Do you ever do any thinking for yourself?

                    1. Tony, bailing out the people who burned down 1500 business in Minneapolis was always a bad thing. You think it is good. And that is because you think what those people did was fine, just like Biden and Harris think it is fine.

                      You never once said shit about the rioting and violence until you realized it was hurting Biden in the polls.

                    2. Tony
                      Do you ever do any thinking for yourself?

                      An amusing comment from someone who has never had an original thought.

                    3. So you contend that Biden and Harris decided to permit members of their staff to donate to a terrorist organization, and that characters as politically inept as that are STILL beating Trump?

                      Find me the link that demonstrates that the bail charity was in any way controversial before you Brownshirt assholes decided to pretend its controversy into existence.

                    4. They are quickly losing the lead on Trump. And there is reason to believe at least some Republicans and indepndents aren’t being truthful as to their voting preference. Multiple polls and studies have come out recently that support the supposition that Trump supporters lie about being Trump supporters to strangers, including pollsters.

                    5. Tony
                      Find me the link that demonstrates that the bail charity was in any way controversial before you Brownshirt assholes decided to pretend its controversy into existence.

                      Hilarious. Tony seems to believe the underlying facts are irrelevant, only criticism matters. I guess that’s why he spends so much time lying about what happens. He apparently thinks the lies replace reality.

                      I think we should charge him $200 / hr for helping him uncover why he’s incapable of functioning in the real world.

                    6. I just want evidence that the Minnesota Freedom Fund was a controversial organization.

                      They’re bailing out rioters regardless of whether they were criticized. Although it’s interesting criticizing left wing institutions is enough to make people “brownshirts” in your idiotic belief system.

                      Interesting reveal.

                    7. And what is even funnier, is that the rioters actions are exactly what the Brownshirts actually did, use violence to silence their political opponents, destroy businesses and yo intimidate people into giving into their political goals. Criticizing was never what the Brownshirts did.

    2. Prove me wrong!

      Instead let’s all highlight the level of thought in left wing politics.

  46. Well I’m on Biden’s side
    Yeah, his backside, like an inflamed boil.

  47. Hilarious. Robby Soave says it’s a myth that someone is behind funding the rioters that travel from city to city and cites a USAToday article as proof? LOL! Robby Soave sounds more like a “useful idiot” than merely a garden-variety idiot.

    Let’s apply a modicum of common sense, shall we? Most people, unless they’re financially independent or on government subsistence, require money for such things as food, shelter and transportation. They acquire money through jobs (or the Bank of Mom & Dad). It’s absurd to think that out-of-state rioters somehow took time off from work or school to travel to another state on their own dime so that they can loot, set buildings and cars ablaze, and assault (or kill) police officers and anyone else who gets in the way or doesn’t bow down. No, someone’s footing the bill for the gas money, the McD’s, and a place to stay, although I’m sure the Left leading “the Resistance” have some sort of list of useful idiots they can call on when they need to give their “shock troops” a place to crash.

    As for Robby’s handwringing about an investigation, we’re talking about organized crime, not Constitutionally-protected free speech and peaceable assembly. It’s evident to even a casual observer that “the Resistance” is now engaged in organizing criminal activity. It’s one thing to organize talking points so that every Democrat or media ally uses the same language to gaslight the public about the nature of the riots and its goals. It’s quite another when you organize your “soldiers” to riot and employ violence to achieve your political goals. That’s terrorism, by definition, and it’s time to follow the money and decapitate “the Resistance.”

  48. First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth.

    I, too, used to think it was a fanciful notion, a crazy conspiracy theory or some way to paint the left as secret anarchists (or using them as useful idiots). I am now not so convinced.

  49. Trump should troll by mentioning there are very fine people on both sides.

  50. I guess I’m too cynical to be shocked, but if I wasn’t, the title to this article would begin my descent into cynicism. As soon as someone tells you you don’t need to investigate some credible story…you need to investigate it. WTF Reason??

  51. Would it be a question the Federal Government needs to ask if it’s the Russians that are funding the riots?

    1. We won’t know it’s not the Russians if we don’t ask these questions.

      1. Russia could be interfering in our elections to help Donald Trump win AGAIN, and you just want to let it happen? What happened to you Robby?

  52. No, it isn’t a myth. There was a story in 2017 about one of these miscreants being apprehended by Secret Service and being asked who paid for her plane ticket. As I recall she wrote an article saying, of course like-minded people finance our activities, what’s the big deal.

    To the extent there are illegal activities occurring, it is entirely appropriate to look into the financing of those activities.

    Even without illegal activity, we have many rules regarding transparency as to who is funding political activities.

    This article’s attempt to conflate this issue with the concept of “paid actors” is ridiculously dishonest. The violence, arson, and looting has nothing to do with “acting” – that stuff really happened, it wasn’t filmed on a movie set. And political operatives generally believe ideologically in what they are doing. The fact that their activities are funded by like-minded people does not make them “actors.” Are politicians “paid actors” because they receive campaign contributions?

    1. There are two definitions for actor. One is someone who acts in a certain process or enterprise. “Elon Musk is a major actor in the field of space technology”

      1. That might not be the comparison you want, considering how many Elon Musk projects have turned out to be vaporware – another name for make-believe…

  53. The very purpose of asking questions and conducting investigations is the ascertain the truth-value of propositions and only requires a reasonable suspicion (ergo, hypothesis) to be valid for inquiry. The suggestion that such questions should not be asked, or their truth-value investigated, is nonsense and should not be advanced by responsible and thinking people. Further, even if one found the notion that undisclosed groups were funding unrest ridiculous (it seems merely “unlikely” to me), there would nevertheless be a vested public interest in establishing that the claims are empty beyond a reasonable doubt for the purposes of putting a potentially disruptive conspiracy theory to bed.

  54. ‘Who Funds the Rioters?’ Is Not a Question the Federal Government Needs To Ask

    If it is a seditious conspiracy to disrupt or overthrow the lawful elected government, then yes, they do have a need to ask that question.

    1. Maybe he means the federal government doesn’t need to ask for the same reason the government doesn’t need to ask who paid for all the tiny American flags at the LGBT parade in Bishkek.

  55. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do..Usa Online Jobs

  56. Well, uh gee, if I recall correctly, nobody ever thought the Tea Party movement was funded by a secret cabal, right?

  57. Or that a secret cabal in a foreign country interfered with the 2016 election

    1. That was demonstrated by evidence.

      1. The best kind of evidence: Fake evidence!

        1. The kind uncovered by investigators and congressional committees who’d be better off if they didn’t find any.

          1. Except that never really happened. And before you bring up the ones charged, none were actually charged with anything to do with conspiracy to coordinate with the Russians, or anything to do with colluding with Russians.

  58. It is those damn Canadians again. They flood our markets with cheap aluminum, wood, cheese. Then they close the border on us.
    They are closing the Trump hotel in Vancouver. They have been stealing our technology and jobs for years.

    Wisconsin, Oregon, they hit the northern cities with these hired thugs. Probably funding both sides. Why? They hate us. They want to tip the scales to Biden so they can get a better deal.

    Oh sure nobody suspects the Canadians. They are harmless. They blend right in. Yeah harmless. You know what they did to the native population, the First Nations? Worse than here. They are still doing it.

    I’m tellin ya its the Canuks behind it. Look to the north my friends, look to the north.

      1. A classic.

        Here is another one I like.


        1. Canadian Bacon, great movie, great actors. And Wag the Dog was basically a rip off of this movie. With a bigger budget and higher paid actors.

    1. That’s just what the gingers want you to think.

      1. I am a Mary Anne guy myself. She was much cuter.

      2. i love them.

  59. Here’s how this works: “legitimate” political organizations hire community outreach staff who help organize these protests using social media. They also have operatives who can reserve hotel rooms for out of town attendees and a few of the traveling Antifa punks might be invited as guests. They aren’t necessarily paid by that organization to protest or riot, but the organization helps make it happen.

    1. Yes and they know exactly what they are doing. I think they are likely smart enough not to leave enough of a paper trail to make them criminally liable. But, the public has a right to know what they are doing and hold their movements and organizations accountable accordingly.

    2. Well a lot of these organizations are so loosely organized that you can’t track them down or find someone to prosecute other than the one committing the crime and they are hard to catch.

      Some of these people have day jobs, maybe most of them. Some might have good income. So “ I gave my buddy $200 to go to Washington. I had no idea he was going to smash a store window” Hard to go after that.

      I know I keep repeating it but Mao said “the guerrilla must move with the people as a fish swims in the sea” That is exactly what they are doing.

  60. Say his name: George Soros.

    This comment not approved by Silicon Valley brain slugs.

  61. I’m late to the comments party. This may have already been stated, too many comments to check them all. But everyone knows, or should know, who is funding these protesters…GOVERNMENT!!! Government has told everyone they cannot go to work or school or the park or to a ballgame, etc, etc. The government is paying these people to not go to work. With nothing else to do, “Hey let’s go protest”. The government is funding these protests, end stop. Open back up the economy and make people go back to work, and the number of protesters drops to near zero.

    1. There will still be a few unemployable hangers on who will continue to protest like they did at OWS, and have been doing in Portland for the past 4 years.

  62. It’s not abundantly clear, Robby Soave is part of the conspiracy to cover-up the conspiracy.

    1. Sorry, I meant: “It’s now abundantly clear …. “

  63. Rand is regurgitating the party line, which is: identify the usual culprits; everybody will ring their hands and admonish others for their negligence and vow NEVER AGAIN.

    Pogo was right.

  64. He’s right, there’s no reason for the FBI to investigate this. I mean those Arabs are just here to take flying lessons. Oops that was something else.

  65. “Who Funds the Rioters?’ Is Not a Question the Federal Government Needs To Ask”

    True. It’s the media who should be investigating the funding of the rioters.

    Not gonna happen, though.

  66. There’s nothing in that USA Today article which clearly establishes that funding by a “shadowy cabal is a myth.”

    1. It’s not a myth that a guy who bought into Trumpworld conspiracy theories sent pipe bombs to Soros, the Clintons, and the Obamas.

      Only the left is committing violence!!

      1. No one said that either. We are pointing out that you are defending left violence or ignoring it completely to condemn right wing violence.

        1. I am proportioning my concern to the threats. Right wing violence is a far bigger problem than left wing violence right now and has been for years. Agreed?

          1. Uhm, no, your side has been conducting violence since November of 2016 and it has gotten worse over the past 90 days. And so far the body count for the past three months is at least three times larger for killed by your side and the property damage is far greater. So no the violence from the left is far more of a danger currently. Pointing out something that happened in 1995 is a non-sequitor, because we are talking about today. And Antifa has been using physical violence for four 6ears to silence the right. They have just stepped it up to riots and murder this summer. And they are larger than any right wing militia or white nationalist group (which are a fairly small percentage of the population according to even the Obama DoJ). So no, only in your fevered mind is the right wing a bigger current threat.

          2. And it hasn’t been a bigger threat for several years, right wing violence. However, any time any white person kills anyone your side loves to paint them as right wing, even when they are registered Democrats and espouse progressive ideals.

          3. And also your proportioning your care is an admission that you ignore violence by your side, because you think it is justified, just as everyone has accused you of doing.

          4. And you talk about a guy mailing pipe bombs, when a progressive attempted to murder several senator and congressman for the sin of being Republicans, so even your example that started this thread is offset by similar if not worse violence by the left.

  67. Sounds pretty easy to me … if paying protesters and others is something that will benefit the Left (thus, hurt Trump), why wouldn’t someone fund it?

  68. If you live in the rightwing propaganda alternative universe, rioting in cities by BLM is the most important story on planet earth right now. Comparing death tolls to the other stuff going on in the world, it’s not even close, and a couple even violent clashes in cities during the apocalypse may be a low rate compared to what we’d expect. Who’s to judge?

    The fact that Trump has conjured a distraction from his failures with covid and the economy is not surprising, and that’s on him.

    The fact that you guys fall for it like bowling pins as long as it has a scary black menace at the heart of the narrative is kind of on you. Republicans always know to get that part in when they’re trying to make you afraid so you hand them power.

    1. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jim-treacher/2020/08/31/riot-ravaged-minneapolis-businesses-cant-rebuild-because-the-insurance-wont-cover-it-n867003

      It is the most important thing in the world to these people Tony. But, you are totally okay with these people having lost everything they had. You don’t think it is important. Only right wingers care about this. You are a leftists. And leftists think arson and murder is great as long as it is done by a “protester”.

      Thanks for showing the entire board what a nasty, vicious, asshole you are and how little you care about the lives that the leftist mobs you spent this entire thread defending have destroyed.

      1. You really have to link to fewer rightwing propaganda sources if you want to hide the fact that you’re a total victim of rightwing propaganda. Everyone else here knows better. What gives?

        People do bad things. Rightwingers have sent pipe bombs to prominent Democrats, shoot up churches, and gun nuts are actively responsible for countless mass murders over the past decade. Rightwingers are responsible for more deaths BY FAR than left wingers over the past few years. Why isn’t that the biggest focus of your life?

        Because Trump and pajamas media directed your attention elsewhere and you have no capacity for critical thought, that’s why.

        1. Again Tony must pretend opposing one thing precludes opposing another. How do people convince themselves to be this stupid?

          1. My subject was John’s propensity for swallowing whatever the rightwing media shoves down his throat, as well as proportioning one’s concern to the actual threat. If you want to put down BLM protests for whatever reason, you better be willing to go after the rightwing militia types. They are more organized and you can usually identify them by the confederate flags.

            1. Says the person on here who does nothing but parrot left wing talking points. Even after multiple people correct his factual errors, link to video and other evidence. And still spends hours defending discredited talking points.

            2. They are more organized

              It’s interesting you assert literally anything you think support the left completely without regard to reality.

              1. The left value facts and evidence. If they didn’t, I’d say so. And I wouldn’t be a leftist.

                1. The left value facts and evidence. If they didn’t, I’d say so. And I wouldn’t be a leftist.

                  Obviously false as your only evidence is your fantasies. You rely on them so exclusively it’s not clear you understand there’s a difference between evidence and fantasies.

                2. It’s funny that you think your hyperpartisanship is supported by facts. No, you believe in highly selective facts that support your narrative. You reject facts that go against your narrative (as we have demonstrated multiple times today by actually correcting your “facts”). This is called confirmation bias, BTW not evidence and not critical thinking.

                  1. I disagree. I may get things wrong but I attempt to be rigorous in consulting reliable sources for the best data I can find.

                    If you can’t see that the rightwing side is not only almost all confirmation bias, but supports its cause with endless conspiracy theories about why mainstream sources of facts are biased and nefarious, you don’t know your own movement very well.

                    1. By reliable sources you mean ones that support your narrative and ones you decide are reliable. And the fact that you discount any source that disagrees with your assertion, even when they come from what you term “reliable sources” is proof positive of my assertion. As for my movement, which exact movement are you talking about?
                      And the fact that you think either side is free of confirmation bias demonstrates how much you suffer from confirmation basis.

                    2. Yeah, the best that academia and journalism have to offer. Those things the right constantly calls biased without evidence.

                      So I guess truth is relative to perspective and the postmodernists were right.

                    3. “So I guess truth is relative to perspective and the postmodernists were right.”

                      I don’t have to guess that

    2. If you live in the rightwing propaganda alternative universe, rioting in cities by BLM is the most important story on planet earth right now.

      It’s interesting left wingers pretend this sort of scale balancing is inappropriate – and racist – when when not to their advantage as when people point out the number of blacks killed by cops is minuscule compared to the number killed by other blacks. In fact the number of unarmed blacks killed this year will likely be less than the number of people killed during the riots.

      But like all Tony’s assertions there’s one set of standards for leftists and one standard for everyone else. Luckily it always boils down to it being racist to care about anything Tony wishes we wouldn’t so the interplay of rules is not complicated.

      1. So, try and keep up. Violence in black communities is part and parcel of the core problem that we are trying to address and that Trump and his goons are actively working to prevent addressing: poverty and a lack of institutional support in black communities.

        You, as part of the problem, want to pretend that there something wrong with black individuals that makes them more prone to shooting each other than white people. They the problem can be safely ignored and we can go on having a permanent racial underclass.

        1. You, as part of the problem, want to pretend that there something wrong with black individuals

          Why don’t you show me the comment this can be claimed from?

          Unfortunately when leftists can’t support their claims they invent fantasies of racism. This is why indoctrination is so important to them, they need to believe their fantasy life is real before they can become this stupid.

          1. So you tell me what explains the black on black crime problem.

            1. Tony
              So you tell me what explains the black on black crime problem.

              This is an admission your previous comment was unsupportable. It’s revealing you make assertions first and look for evidence afterward. It explains why you’re so often wrong and always proven stupid.

              1. I just asked a question.

                1. No, you didn’t.

                2. You made an assertion before that. Your subsequent request for support for that assertion is an admission you did not have any when you made it. If you had any you would have been able to explain what led you to your conclusion instead of asking a question.

                  What an asshole.

        2. No, there is not something unique about the black people except that progressive programs have created a permanent underclass. Once again making a straw man argument Tony.

          1. Also, I think you, Tony, are once again projecting. I think you actually everyone thinks this way because that is what you actually think. It is revealing how misread what everyone’s intentions are and I think it is becoming more clear that this is because you are projecting your own feelings on others.

          2. What progressive programs make black people more prone to violence?

            1. Didn’t say more prone to violence, I said they create a perpetual underclass of poverty. And those who live in poverty, no matter their ethnicity, are prone to violence. Violence has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with hopelessness and poverty. Your focus on race once again suggests that your charges of racism are actually projection on your part.

              1. We just made the same point but blame different institutions for the poverty. I suspect it’s more conservative governance that is predicated on explicit and implicit racism and has been since time began, and you put the blame on the people actively trying to fix the problem and who black people actually support nearly universally.

                Obviously leftist policy has not solved all the problems of the black community, but it did achieve civil rights reforms in the 60s, which conservatives existed to oppose and won election after election running against.

                But I can’t be comfortable with the idea that almost all black voters have chosen the wrong side because they were duped or something. Surely you can understand why they don’t support the policies of the party of 90% white people who defend confederate flags and property rights over lives.

                1. And no leftist causes didn’t achieve civil rights. It was moderate Republicans who spearheaded civil rights. And they weren’t liberals. Conservatives believe in small government and individual rights. You focus on a small sliver of conservatives and damn them all. Also, how do conservative principles contribute to poverty in the black community, when most black communities tend to be Democratically ran for decades?
                  Actually, if you look at the data, black poverty increased after Johnson’s New Society. It also increases after the New Deal. It went down under Eisenhower. Facts don’t support your beliefs. Progressive principles have harmed the black community.

                  1. Okay let’s go back to the Eisenhower tax rates.

                    1. Sure, as long as we’re going back to Eisenhower budgets, too.

                    2. “Okay let’s go back to the Eisenhower tax rates.”

                      Which resulted in no revenue increases, and I’m damn sure you are so stoooopid you really didn’t know that.
                      There is zero evidence that you knew it and hoped your bullshit would pass.

                2. you put the blame on the people actively trying to fix the problem and who black people actually support nearly universally.

                  Yes, because the people heavily invested in an idea are never blind to its downsides. Keen observer of organized religion you must be.

                  I can’t be comfortable with the idea that almost all black voters have chosen the wrong side because they were duped or something

                  People constantly vote against their own material self-interest when given some reason to, often through the creation by an entrenched local power base of an in-group/out-group dynamic. A large portion of Black America doesn’t need a reason to vote against Republicans; they know it’s right and will make up reasons post-hoc to support that decision. They are not unique in this regard (see also the voting habits of: Jews, Evangelicals, Mormons, East Indians…).

                  Why do black people vote Democrat? You might as well ask why they smoke menthol cigarettes.

                  1. Democrats don’t have to be particularly good to blacks for them to see outright generations-long hostility from Republicans.

  69. Working Online from home and earns more than $15k every month. I have received $17365 last month by doing online work from home. Its an easy and simple job to do from home and even a little child can do this online and makes money. Everybody can get this job now and earns more dollars online by just copy and paste this website in browser and then follow instructions to get started right now.
    ══════►►►USA JOBES

  70. Of course it is shadowy funding or you who write this would have evidenced otherwise. It is communist and paid for by communists and if you don’t see this you are blind. $0r0$ and the Dems are all Globalist / Communists. The plan has been around for decades –

  71. You know, instead of focusing on the riots themselves, perhaps it would be a more worthwhile exercise to focus on the origin of the protests themselves, which then can sometimes lead to riots. Just think if cops weren’t shooting unarmed black men 7 times in the back, or if cops weren’t intentionally suffocating black men over alleged petty crimes. Maybe if these things weren’t happening, there wouldn’t be any riots in the first place.

    1. I like how it’s just a given for you that blacks are going to commit lots of crime and fight the police when caught.

    2. Resisting arrest, sexual assault are petty crimes? And it is your opinion, and others but not universal, that shooting an armed assailant, or possibly armed, assailant in the back isn’t warranted. And the focus on the number of shots is irrelevant because multiple studies have demonstrated that when using a semi-automatic pistol people often fire far more times than they mean to. That isn’t evidence of malfeasance, possibly bad training but also adrenaline and instinct. Even experienced shooters experience this from time to time.

    3. Such an obedient collectivist

  72. Does anyone remember when Reason used to be a good Libertarian magazine???
    This article is so much dung, it is hard to grasp

    1. Here are a few hints:
      1. Look at the author before deciding to actually read the article.
      2. Use the vertical dashes to skip over the useless threads started by certain posters.
      3. Drink a lot.

  73. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Calling something a myth does not make it false.

    1. Man people are taking this hard. Just how much energy do you think George Soros has?

      1. Who says it’s Soros alone? Soros is just one example. People have also mentioned the Ford Foundation and other funding sources.

        1. People mention a lot of things. What’s the truth? Also, what’s wrong if there is big money behind a political movement? You don’t like that it’s not all reserved for evil conservative causes?

          1. It isn’t the money behind a political movement that is the problem, it isn’t. It is if they are funding this knowing the money will be used to torment violence and other criminal activities. And several have not only asserted it but provided links to evidence. Once again you straw man what I actually stated feather than address what my actual point was. Money for protesting and political organizations is fine. Money to support criminal activities is illegal, even in a libertarian world.

          2. DUDE.
            Do you read any of the responses, or do you post, and just respond to the voices in your head?
            This question has been answered multiple times in this thread.

  74. Thanks for confirming why I cancelled my subscription.

  75. I think Reason is redefining Reason.

    1. Or reason.

  76. Robby Soave does not know what is a myth, and what is not. When a person pretends to know what he does not know, he is a faker, trying to win approval for what he does not deserve. He could not possibly know if “agitators” are funded by a dark source.

  77. Part of it is likely funded (history shows these things sometimes are), part of it is comfortable progressive naifs believing in a social justice cause, part of it is nihilism for its own sake, part of it is deliberate and orchestrated from opportunists, and finally part of it is due to the pandemic which messed with people’s psyche and politicians made it worse.

    I do know one thing. Had those incompetent, gutless, loser left-wing Mayos done their damn jobs EARLY, they could have avoided a lot of this mess and blood.


  78. And Robby Soave is supposed to be the sane one at Reason?

    To use such a trite image akin to Dr. Evil sitting in his lair, stroking his cat, pushing the buttons of the world to create mayhem, is just idiotic. As if the only options are Dr. Evil or perfectly innocent protesters who just got a little too excited.

    The Anarchists who run Reason have their sympathies, of course. They can’t help looking at the mayhem and feeling a little warm inside, but perhaps they shouldn’t try to be so stupidly obvious about it.

    1. The Anarchists who run Reason

      If only. The writers at Reason are simply failed public intellectuals. They used to hold slightly contrarian viewpoints, which made up for their lack of skill, but really, these days, they are just somewhere in the conformist, progressive mainstream.

    2. “And Robby Soave is supposed to be the sane one at Reason?”

      Where would you ever get such an insane idea?

  79. It should be looked into. These riots are unnatural and can’t be explained away as just some vagabonds having fun. Politicians are throwing their own police under the bus (most of which aren’t bad people). It was politicians who ignored complaints or didn’t bother with them and some even protected police who deserved jail time – they failed to weed out the bad apples for too long. Cities are letting themselves be destroyed rather than call for help too. The government’s main, really only, job is protect people and they aren’t doing it. Why? Now, what party is in charge of those cities, is condemning all police rather than finding solutions and would benefit by keeping the chaos going for the next few months?

  80. I can only speak for observations in Portland, but I’d say a few of the troublemakers are junkies. So people who give money to homeless and those flying signs are finding it in a way. A lot of crowd funding takes place too. I’d hope people would of realized by now that there’s no Soros type figure paying protesters and troublemakers. However the number of people with TCDYTS(Trump’s cock down your throat syndrome) is staggering so I’m sure there’s folks out there that think this is astroturf. It’s not. Agree or disagree with the protesters or the knuckleheads causing trouble, the protesters are genuine in their beliefs. Some of the troublemakers are just looking for an opportunity to cause trouble and don’t care about the issue.

    1. “you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

  81. I can’t imagine why nobody takes the Libertarian Party seriously. It’s an absolute mystery, I tell you.

    3 solid months of mindless nationwide riots with well-documented coordination on social media, backed up by insightful testimony in a Senate hearing? No, no, no! It’s all completely organic. Every last bit of the rioting is totally normally and not at all being propped up by any groups. It’s not like there have been crowdsourced funds set up to immediately bail out violent arrestees. It’s not like sitting democrats have widely refused to condemn “antifa” by name.

    Hey Robby, does the “NAP” actually apply to screaming commie arsonists that keep destroying peoples’ livelihoods? Go back to whining about marijuana or something else that nobody above the age of 23 cares about.

  82. Hmmm…so it’s just a coincidence that one unemployed loser who bought body armor, guns and industrial grade fireworks and brought them to a riot and met up with a bunch of other unemployed losers who also individually bought body armor, guns and industrial grade fireworks and brought them to a riot, is it?

    Yeah, I believe that. Really, I do.

  83. Also, FWIW the body count for rioters who have killed innocent victims is not really established but it is most certainly greater than one.

    So far the number of people killed by Trump supporters except in self-defense is zero.

    1. At least 14 have been killed in the riots. Four we know directly killed by rioters. Or by people claiming to be with the “peaceful protests”, two of those killed were unarmed black men.

      1. Thank you for doing the research that I probably should have done.

        On the whole issue of BLM, all I have to say is that I will take them seriously when they show that they are actually concerned about the 7000+ black men who are killed every year; a number that plainly dwarfs the number of black men killed with or without justification by police every year.

    2. “except in self-defense”

      The trial for Kyle Rittenhouse has not happened yet. It is only taken as fact that he acted in self-defense among conservative circles.

      1. Except for the video which is all over the internet.

        1. Which shows KR clearly running away from a mob out to kill him.

          1. But they clearly intended to kill him in a mostly peaceful manner.

  84. Everything in this article is wrong.

    First, he asserts that shadowy funding is “a myth”, but this is merely a conclusory statement with no evidence to support it. The closest he comes is a USA Today article (not the most reputable source) which essentially says the same thing with no evidence. But we know for a fact that Soros spends billions funding far-left groups, financing radical prosecuting attorneys, etc. Sure, he might not have written a check to the rioters, but that doesn’t mean it’s not his money, funnelled through one of his organizations, which is subsidizing them. If you’re going to deny that show some evidence.

    Second, sure they’re not all actors. But some clearly are. I’ve personally seen Craigslist ads seeking paid protesters at $15 per hour. They might not be members of the SAG but they are “actors” in any meaningful sense of the word.

    Finally, it is a federal crime to cross state lines or use interstate commerce to incite, organize, promote or participate in riots, or to commit violence as part of a riot. 18 US Code §2101. Look it up. If there is evidence that some of the people who attacked Paul were from outside of DC (and almost certainly they were) the federal government has every right, indeed an obligation, to investigate and prosecute anyone who participated or financed it. (“Financing” falls under “organizing and promoting”, as well as aiding and abetting.)

  85. Secretly funded protesters is absolutely a myth; one propagated by the Orange Occupant of the Oval Office. It’s almost as big a myth as his hair, or his height, or his sexual prowess. Just remember, if Mango Mussolini’s lips are moving…he’s lying.

    1. And what do you have to say about your senile nominee who has been on the wrong side of just about every issue for the last fifty years or so?

      Joe Biden is an upper middle class child of privilege who went to an elite private school who has gone so far as to try to create a fictitious working class background, going so far as plagiarizing the speeches of a foreign socialist politician (who actually does have a working class background) and while that derailed his 1988 presidential bid it was merely a blip in his career. He got to go onto inflicting his incompetence on us for many more years.

      He is so transparently phony that it is hard to believe that human beings with seemingly function brains actually think he would be a good president.

      1. Say what you will about Trump, he may be a shameless self promoter and even a narcissist but he has never lied about his family background.

        1. I’m sure he actually believes that having an uncle at MIT makes himself a genius.

          1. As far as I know he has never made any exaggerated claims of genius. Furthermore I have not found any evidence that Trump has claimed any exceptionalism as a result of his relationship with John G. Trump.

            It might not be MIT but the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania is not exactly Podunk U.

            Damn, Tony you really are desperate aren’t you?

            1. Trump literally, and infamously, called himself a “stable genius”.

              1. When?

                1. And even if he did, claims of “genius” are simply subjective. Who is to say that Trump is not a genius? After all, he is a graduate of an Ivy League school so he’s kind of on his way. Many people brag about genius based on family connections and the schools they attended.

                  Joe Biden’s fiction about his “working class” background is an absolute lie. There is no foundation for it at all.

                  1. He’s not a graduate of an Ivy League school and had someone else take his SAT. Christ.

              2. “…Trump literally, and infamously, called himself a “stable genius”…”
                And YOU find that a problem.
                ‘Nuff said.

    2. Just remember, if Mango Mussolini’s lips are moving…he’s lying.

      It’s quite racist to compare Obama to a tropical fruit.

  86. Sure, just like Covid is a pandemic which has killed 30 million in the US. Soros and Gates are paying whoever they have to so that they can get there green reset agenda in place. They will pay rioters, Congress and anyone else to get their Marxist way. Anything that goes against the Democrat/socialist agenda is always called a conspiracy.

  87. A implies B implies A. Circular reasoning.

    Soros isn’t sponsoring riots therefore we don’t need to investigate whether or not he’s sponsoring riots. Since we’ve never investigated whether or not he’s sponsoring riots we’ve never found proof that he’s investigating riots. Therefore Soros isn’t sponsoring riots.

  88. And Lenin and Troytksy didn’t get Wall Street Money..yep sure.

    There is a money trail from academia, “non profits”, wall street and silicon valley supporting all these folks. Hell Jack Dorsey just gave $10M to a bolshevik. come on Reason start to defend our liberty….these bolsheviks need to be identified and removed from power as they are traitors..killing Americans because of their political views and “celebrating” it or blaming their deaths like that idiot Gov of Oregon on the victim is sick

    1. Would there happen to be documentation of this money trail we can all see?

      1. Yeah, I like to see that also.

      2. Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey drew praise Thursday for donating $10 million to Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research. The contribution was greeted with commendation by Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, author, scholar, and founder of the center.

        (The “Center for Anti-Racist Research” is probably better described as “neo-Marxist” rather than “bolshevik”, if you care about such fine distinctions.)

      3. Review the filed reports of the Ford Foundation.
        Look into the overlapping boards of several ‘charities’.
        read a little:

  89. I shouted out ‘Who Funds the Rioters?’
    When after all, it was you and me

  90. “Peaceful protestors” seem to have money for food, a place to crash, rides around town, plane tickets, signs, bricks, spray paint, paint guns and ammo, water bottles and a place to freeze them, bail money where there is still bail and the free time to do it all. Me? I’ve got to get up and go to work in the morning. I’d just like to know where the money is coming from.

    1. A lot of it comes from the COVID money, student loans, non-profit funding, art grants, and research grants federal and state governments give them.

  91. Regardless of the funding for lefty rioters (which I do think needs attention; those who fund illegal activities are party to them), it’s the laughable claims by the left that the issue is exacerbated by anyone of any political stripe pointing out the riots are largely left-driven.
    Shame on me or others for not lying about it and claiming that Trump or the R mayors of some city or other are the cause of Portland lefty scum burning down the house!

  92. He’s right it’s not a shadowy cabal it’s Go Fund Me. These groups openly solicit donations and people do.

  93. So how are the rioters funded? Through a charity group like Open Sources Foundation. Or whatever the flavor of the week may be. What we’re seeing is a tactic that has been used to overthrow governments in Eastern Europe. The playbook is identical. The deviations come from Trump not taking the bait and falling into traps. The fact that the author makes this claim reveals him as nothing more than a deep state hack pushing propaganda. Go pound sand moron. You convinced no one with a functioning brain cell.

  94. First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth. Conspiracy theorists on all sides of the political spectrum like to imagine that their enemies are financed by some secret puppetmaster

    They are not funded by “some secret puppetmaster”, they are funded by a mix of extreme left wing organizations, political donations, and the US government.

    As for Soros, he is clearly neither a “secret cabal” nor a “secret puppetmaster”, he has stated his agenda plainly and there is nothing secret about the organizations he funds; the fact that he is doing it openly doesn’t make his ideology or actions any less reprehensible.

    1. Like.

  95. Great article Lot’s of information to Read…Great Man Keep Posting and update to People..thanks

  96. Legitimate non-government activist organizations ARE required to report their sources of funding to the federal government, if not the identities of individual donors. If Reason is advocating that no NGO should ever have to report their sources of funding to the IRS, then fair enough. Otherwise, however, it’s a double-standard in favour of illegitimate and violent organizations.

  97. public administration by laxmikant public administration m laxmikanth free pdf For Upsc Exam

  98. public administration by laxmikant PDF public administration m laxmikanth free pdf For Upsc Exam

  99. Sure it is. If government exists to do anything, it is to protect the life and property of its citizens from harm. To that end, finding out who is funding those who intentionally destroy and threaten otherwise peaceful citizens is well within its purview

  100. The article says, “the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth” and, for proof, provides a link to an Associated Press story about Soros. The people asking for an investigation didn’t say it was Soros they said it was somebody so a link about Soros is not germane.

    The author goes on to say, “but, in general, people who show up to protests are usually not paid actors. People engaged in militant, far-left activism may travel from city to city, and they may be loosely connected with other activists in a semi-organized fashion, but they probably aren’t sitting on some secret pile of money.” He starts “but in general … are not usually”. Once again, he didn’t say, “it didn’t happen”. He drags out some vague generality and tells us that this IS the case and that it is proof that nobody is paying. Then he says, “people … may travel … and may be loosely connected … but they probably …” I see “may travel”, “may be connected”, and “probably”. Lots of “may” and “probably”.
    Nothing that says, “it isn’t happening and here are the facts” just another opinion.

    Then he says, “… a mandate to monitor and investigate protest groups would give the federal government frightening license”. This of course bears no relationship to the “Trump conspired with the Russians to fix the election” story. Nothing like that. At all.

    Then, “The frustrating reality is that much of the wanton property destruction … is opportunistic and only vaguely ideological”. I just watched a video of a group of Black Lives Matter people trailing, surrounding, then killing a man in Portland. The video starts showing the team of people who killed the guy standing in a street with bullhorns. They are clearly ideological – nothing vague about it. I had not the slightest problem determining their ideas and values.

    It is obvious that someone (or some organization) is recruiting these rioters, paying for them to eat, stay places, and travel. I support the right to peacefully protest, it is a critical element of our form of government. But I oppose riots. It appears to me that it is organized by someone. If that is true, that is conspiracy and a felony. People are dying. Do you want your vote to be manipulated by that?

  101. Sorry, I don’t buy it. This is opinion based on assumptions; it lacks facts. Likely a response to Sloan Rachmuth’s Aug. 31 piece in the Federalist, “Foundation with Biden Campaign Ties Funding Leftist Agitators on US streets.” Look it up.

  102. Thank you for sharing this great post. Welcome to our academic essay writing services such as Documentary and many more

  103. If it’s a myth, the question is imperative: to prove that it’s a myth. There is no bad answer and no bad question. Only the truth however that falls.

  104. Everything starts out as a kooky conspiracy. Maybe look into it before you dismiss it out of hand.

  105. I don’t know. Perhaps this article has merit, but it’s not unreasonable to reason a foreign governments have programs to reap discord in the US and supply aid where they can. Certainly we do it. Radio Free Europe is still in operation for heaven’s sake.

  106. Are you fucking shitting me? This clearly indicates that Reason has completely lost their way. There is no moral reasoning left here. Just Trump Derangement Syndrome and leftism co-opting yet another institution because that institution did not adequately recognize the insidious nature of the evil left and set up systems to resist it.

    It is most certainly the job of the Federal government to find out who is funding this nation spanning Marxist terrorism, and hopefully kill or prosecute those involved. This is actual 5th generation civil war. Our Republic is in serious danger of being killed off once and for all.

  107. “In the roundup thread I linked to the Ford Foundation as one example of funding these groups. It isn’t even a shadow conspiracy. They do it in the open.”

    This is what I thought when I saw the headline whilst watching The Amazing Polly on YouTube. So I came here to see for my self what sort of a doofus Rico Suave is, and it is plain.

    He knows about The Ford Foundation and all the other Left Wing tax exempt foundations that fund revolution. Revolution is not what people think it is, is the problem.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.