Tom Perriello, PAC corruption, and “sugar daddy” Soros
by Mike Warnalis
On Friday, September 24 of this year, The Washington Times reported that tax forms obtained by that paper revealed that George Soros is and has been a primary funding source of the group known as the J-Street PAC for at least the last three years and probably longer. This story is important for several reasons, perhaps the least noteworthy being that the organization, both a left-leaning lobby and a registered PAC which seeks a peaceful outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has tried to conceal the connection since its inception. After all, Soros, an anti-American billionaire who has been one of the largest financial backers of Democrat candidates and is one of the more frequent visitors to the White House, as well as one of the largest funders of ultra-liberal move-on.org and Media Matters for America. The same Soros, an accused Nazi collaborator who claimed that the 9-11 hijackers were merely “freedom fighters” and that the Israelis have turned the rest of the world into anti-Semites by their defensive actions among his many charges. While J Street has spoken out against the wishes of the Israelis to determine the outcome of the debate in favor of a multi-national collaboration to accomplish the same thing, it has condemned Israel for protecting itself from Hamas gun-runners and has worked to convince the administration and the Congress likewise, it has collected up to one third of its annual budget from Mr. Soros and his family—something that might concern many of its Jewish supporters, and a good reason to keep it quiet.
Along with that, approximately one-half of J-Street’s operating budget came from outside the United States, and from one person! This week, AtlanticMonthly.com reported that one donation of $811,697 came from a wealthy donor in Hong Kong, Consolacion (Connie) Esdicul. While this donation is legal, foreign donations, especially to this extent are considered to raise suspicion if not be downright questionable and often discouraged. This donation is filled with intrigue as to how it made its way into the hands of this lobby/PAC, and the donor’s business and hedge fund relationship to Soros by way of a Pittsburgh international businessman-international gambler on horse races. It’s the sort of the thing we might see in a James Bond film.
So, what does this have to do with Central Virginia? Here in the fifth district, we have a Democrat running for Congress who has been receiving money from Mr. Soros, in one form or another, since he first ran in 2008. In the most recent election cycle, Mr. Perriello reports that his fourth largest donor is the aforementioned J- Street PAC, and from it he has received $16,500. His 35th largest donor is the man himself—$6800 from the Soros Management Group. Just “Follow the Money,” and see where it leads. In his ads, Mr. Perriello claims to have never accepted money from lobbyists. He even likes to say to he returned $1750 from four lobbyists who donated to his campaign and he hadn’t realized it. Well one person’s lobby is another person’s PAC, and the J-Street PAC claims to be both. And so, Mr. Perriello, why not return the tainted Soros money you have taken and while you are at it give back the $10,000 you took from the “PAC to the Future” which is the one established by Nancy Pelosi and managed by her husband? Remember how you want to show your independence of her?
November is the time to clean up Washington and the fifth district, lessen the influence of George Soros, and send Tom Perriello home to Charlottesville!
The same Soros, an accused Nazi collaborator who claimed that the 9-11 hijackers were merely “freedom fighters” and that the Israelis have turned the rest of the world into anti-Semites by their defensive actions among his many charges.
Can someone please provide Soros’ exact words about the 9/11 hijackers? I haven’t been able to find them online.
In regards to Israel, that charge is simplistic and not entirely accurate. He has said that
“There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies… If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly… I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world… As an unintended consequence of my actions… I also contribute to that image.”
His views are more clear in the following statement to the New York Review of Books:
“I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel’s policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel’s policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.”
Whatever one’s views of Israel’s actions, behind Soros’ own views is a thoughtful, nuanced, and common sense conviction: there is no excuse for prejudice, but bad actions will produce more prejudice.
In regards to whether Periello should return Soros’ campaign donations, should The New York Times’ 9/11 Neediest Medical campaign return the $1 million Soros donated?
Should Millennium Project, which fights poverty in Africa, return his $50 million?
What about the University of Cape Town, where his money helped black students attend the school under apartheid?
Should New York state give back the $35 million Soros gave it for underprivileged kids?
I don’t approve of all the causes Soros has given money to, but he’s done a great deal around the world to help the needy and foster democracy. If conservatives really believe in freedom, they ought to recognize that calling someone anti-American because of how they use their freedom is downright un-American.
I have had the time to read of your responses to Rob, and others, primarily A Patriot, regarding different issues. I see a very large hole in your above argument. How do you defend Soros’s negative elements, by simply defending his alleged “good” activities. If a rapist happens to be wealthy, and gives a great sum of money to women’s shelters, are we to overlook his rapes? If a child abuser funds children advocacy projects in the light of day, but abuses children in the dead of night, can society or justice say that all is even. Don’t forget, many of these people will give money inorder to curry favor, or to hedge their bets, when the right time comes. For all the good that you claim Soros has accomplished, you can’t forget that he crashed the British economy a few years ago, inorder to make himself more wealthy. Judging by many of your arguments here at this blog site, I can’t beleive, despite your political allegiance, that you could willingly overlook those facts.
Realist, I appreciate you’re asking the question instead just lambasting me as a godless liberal as has happened elsewhere. Not that I mind the insult but an actual discussion is so much more fruitful.
My answer is simple. I don’t see Soros as akin to a rapist of child abuser. Did he really act unethically when he “crashed the British economy” (I know nothing of the details) or did he just take advantage of the sort of unbridled capitalism that liberals are always being called enemies of freedom for trying to restrain, or was it both? Again, I don’t know.
In any case, he’s not about to give the money back, and he made his money legally. If he also made it unethically, isn’t that all the more reason to take it and use it for good?
Are you similarly concerned about the Koch brothers and their bankrolling the Tea Party for financial gain?
Ken, This will help you learn about Soros http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/09/06/the-man-who-broke-the-bank-of-england/.
And sorry, Soros is not an “accused” Nazi collaborator, he is a confessed and unrepentant Nazi collaborator who sent people.
Tom Perriello says he doesn’t take money from “special interests”, well, besides Unions and a guy who sent people to their deaths in concentration camps!
Liberty, if all that is true, he sounds perfectly unscrupulous. IF. But you didn’t answer my questions.
He’s not about to give the money back, and he made his money legally. If he also made it unethically, isn’t that all the more reason to take it and use it for good?
Are you similarly concerned about the Koch brothers and their bankrolling the Tea Party for financial gain?
Also, Prescott Bush made a lot of money collaborating with the Nazis, and not when he was a teenager either. Should his son and grandsons give the money back?
Tom Perriello says he doesn’t take money from “special interest
You’re playing semantics. We all know exactly what is meant by the term “special interests,” and it’s not unions or donors who made their money unethically. Periello is telling the truth.
Here’s a correction to the charge that Soros “collaborated” with the Nazis:
Ken. Do you not see an imposssible precedent with the notion that even if one achieved financial gain in a dishonest fashion, then all the more reason to accept “blood” money, and utilize it for good? How much “good” could be achieved in the dishonest fortunes garnered during this economic roller coaster that we are calling an economy? Is there not something specious about erecting an honorable structure upon unhonorable ground? Yes, you are right of course. No one is ever going to “give back” what they obtained. It is however incumbent upon all of us, to know and exercise right judegement, fully informed of the truth. The fox may be in the hen house. It never hurts to put some buckshot in his backside, so he does not think he is welcome to come again.
This renders most saliently the point I have labored to make, both in previous arguments and in editorial. Realist, you ask the very question that John and Joan Citizen ask. We see that the king and queen have no clothes. However, as long as their nakedness advances the cause(s) of a certain group, then the failure to adequately or honestly render an explaination is acceptable. As is the ability to ignore the obvious implications of the truth.
Until such time as individuals of integrity, can walk through the valley of K Street in DC, and say “NO” to the seducing voices of wealth and power, as voiced by lobbyists, and do what is right, simply because it is right, then there is little hope for a positive change.
Realist, “blood money” is way too strong a metaphor. Nobody died. Your questions deserve an answer, but I won’t give them to you here. Sadly, I see that you have again refused to answer my own challenging questions. An honest debater doesn’t dodge. And I don’t debate dodgers.
Ken, you can post lengthy explanations from Media Matters (Hardly an unbiased fact based source)all day long, but the fact that Soros was directly quoted admitting to sending his fellow jews to their deaths, “if I didn’t someone else would” remains.
Whether Perriello returns the money or not, he is beholden to furthering the interests of Soros and gladly so it appears. The people he is asking to re-elect him need to know this. It’s what his tv ads don’t tell the voters.
As your “challenging” questions go, with all due respect, you are attempting to change the subject.
Here is a Correction to your Media Blathers link:
If you go to that link, you will notice “Avaaz” and “Res Publica” mentioned near the top. Tom Perriello is a Co-founder of Res Publica, along with Soros’ group Move-On.
On Res Publica’s website Perriello is described as a “Global Entrepreneur,” which makes sense with his ties to George Soros. But why would a Global Entrepreneur want to represent the 5th district of Virginia??
One of the things Avaaz boasts of doing may be a partial answer, “organizing rallies, flashmobs, vigils, marchs…giving a massive boost to the climate change movement”.
GLOBAL ENTREPRENEUR??? Ha! More like Austin Perriello–International Man of Mystery.
Can someone photochoppery that?!
Ken, you say “blood money” is way too strong a metaphor. Nobody died. Are you sure? Lives were destroyed. Peoples finances taken. How can you be sure so sure that nobody died? Who is to say that since Soros crashed the British economy, someone who lost everything becasue of it, did not die, snce they no longer had the money for medical care? You assume a lot.
By your own admission, my questions deserve an answer, but you are not going to give them here. Why? Its not that you will not, but rather that you can not? As you are now seeking an excuse to disengage from our discussion, in the same infantile manner that you disengaged from Patriot, then the only reasonable inference I can make is, unspoken concession. Call it what you will. You are not dodging the debater, you are dodging the debate, rather than admitting what all can see. The position is indefensible. I guess this explains why we see so many higher ups in the Obama administration, deciding to leave. They know that the train is running out of track. That their promises and their head man, can not deliver the goods. They want to distance themselves from the eventual fallout.
If you refuse to answer the questions that, by your own words, deserve an answer, then stop coming here and trying to take Rob and others to task for expressing logical, factual and thoughtful opinions.
Realist and Liberty, first of all, I got you guys confused, so in my response to you, Liberty, at 9:56 on 9/30, I was mistaken when I wrote that “you didn’t answer my questions,” and I apologize for that. Those were questions I’d posed to Realist, although as a matter of fact I could just as pertinently have asked them of you.
Realist in regards to “blood money,” you’re being presumptuous, both in presuming without evidence that people died as a result of Soros’ financial dealings, and in presuming that Soros makes political and charitable contributions out of guilt. You don’t have a leg to stand on there.
By your own admission, my questions deserve an answer, but you are not going to give them here. Why?
You can posture all you want, but I’ve already given you my answer. I’ll be glad to answer your latest questions if you’ll first answer the onesI put to you before them. But I don’t debate cowards.
Liberty, since you did refer to the questions I’d asked Realist, I’m not changing the subject, I’m testing you to see if you’re consistent, i.e. if you’ll apply the same standards to your political allies. Like I said to Realist, if you answer my questions, I’ll answer any of yours.
Realsist, Liberty, he is unable to answer, due to the simple fact that there existst no logical way to support his position. Call it what you will, the subject is changed, in the hopes of finding a better arguable position.This ploy of claiming to test Liberty’s consistency is paper thin. It is simply a manner in which to gain time in order to regroup. So far, this local marketplace of ldeas is reflecting the national one. The liberal left can’t make it stick. Not here nor in D.C!