Activists Are US: Liberals in rabid political mode

(at a new high even for them)

There are a plethora of areas which tie into the rabid nature of today’s “progressives”.

The latest on Obama’s ‘phoney scandal’ list is the VA and poor treatment of vets, which is an example. There were calls for Shinseki to step down, rejected out of hand.

There is a deeper issue here and its personal with Libs. Do you think the Libs really care about the VA or veterans? They are proving which is more important by defending Shinseki over the widespread mismanagement in the VA.

But first Shinseki’s history. All you hear is he is a four star general served in the military. If you remember Iraq he was a steady voice in the Liberals’ criticism of the war. He was wildly cited by Liberals in their anti-war campaign. Because he disagreed with Rumsfeld on the number of troops in an surge, he was hailed for his disagreement.

Now at the VA, Democrats’ knee-jerk reaction is to defend him, and since he was their VA pick. No doubt past-disagreement politics factor into the administration’s defense of Shinseki. Had he not been useful to them, he probably wouldn’t be there now, nor entitled to Dems defense. That’s my guess. That aside, he became a default ally of the Left. His post military career includes positions at corporations, also contractors to the military.

But the people frustrated with the VA don’t care about that. It matters to Liberals since politics trumps reality. Were it not for Obama being in the White House, and his man Shinseki at VA, Dems would have no problem politicizing the VA situation for political gain. (as if they are out there by their lonesome defending the military – the way they frame every other group they pander to.) It’s what they do.

The White House says they have full confidence in him, and he says he serves at the pleasure of the president. He said he has no plans of resigning. Veteran organizations have called for his resignation for over a year. He might have been wrong there, he serves the Vets in that capacity. Wouldn’t you think he would have said as much instead of just at the pleasure of the president? What is going on in the VA is symptomatic of what happens in Government, and the Left’s mindset. They instinctively protect government bureaucracy. Backlog? Alter the books, fixing the books not patients.

Another issue, in no particular order, is Liberal activism in media on business. The CEO is forced from his office at Mozilla for his past support of “prop 8” in CA. Not that he was against anyone, just supported traditional marriage. He wasn’t out there with a megaphone. But the left went at him like a pack of wolves for it. So he’s out. It’s all part of the culture that tolerates what is politically convenient — even if it is the mismanagement or abuse in government.

Along the same lines is liberal activists supporting same-sex marriage. And you have the LGBT movement/agenda lashing out at anyone who stands up for traditional marriage. Chick-fil-A anyone? Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty? Oppose their agenda and look out. Standing for tradition is taboo.

On the stimulus, same thing, opposition was hatred of Obama. They distorted and extorted Mitch McConnell’s quote that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” into ‘hatred of Obama’. Then came the mythical “War on women”.

Then you have their defense of ObamaCare despite roll out problems. The defense of ObamaCare stretched from accusations of extreme right-wing politics and branded opponents unreasonable. They did anything to ram it through. Anyone who disagreed was driven by hatred, bigotry or racism toward Obama. The strategy was to demonize any opposition and question their motives.

You have the environmental Nazis in a tizzy defending global warming and Michael Mann, their super hero. (remember the hockey stick) Enter Mark Steyn who said as much in his columns and suffered their attacks, along with National Review, for it. Mann sued both for defamation of character for criticizing his work. Rule number I , tho shalt not criticize or insult Leftisit academia. Buck that and the collective come at you. (by design) But now even defending yourself against their intimidation and attacks can cause defense attorneys to cringe. Possibly even dropping their client.

Along those lines the Keystone Pipeline. The Left channeled all its environmental strength and money to oppose the pipeline for five years. Obama being a creature of the radical Left himself has handed off and stalled the process multiple times. The Left is willing to do anything to “save the earth”. (while destroying civilization as we know it) The lizards’ welfare trumps human interests. Stuck on Steyer; all who oppose them feels their global-warming wrath.

Then we have campuses, universities, and collective academia. This is on various levels on the left’s hot button issues. But gone are the sit-ins, today its about controlling and wielding the strings of government in the most radical ways they can. A pox on anyone or thing that disagrees. It’s called progressive, and so loud and paramount is it that it repels anything in its wake. And the proofs, or fruits, of it are demonstrated across campuses. That’s an entire subject but consider just some of their main bullet points. (Issues coincide with the radical Left, MoveOn and the LGBT movement et al) Not to leave out class warfare — always a popular favorite.

The anti-war left, the anti-Israel left, the pro-appeasement, pro-abortion left, multicultural left, and the big government left, with their ever-present pro amnesty, pro-illegal alien, social justice, pro-LGBT agenda in tow. However, they demand not just in kind support but their full agenda. No a la carte.

What’s new is not just their grievance list or their lobbying power, for their cause, the new tactic is singling out anyone disagreeing with any part of their long laundry list. That is one big difference. It attacks anyone or anything that disagrees. It demands synergy from everyone, despite your own views. And the means is their way, exclusively. No lone cowboys. It plays out in social media, which apparently was bequeathed to them alone.

Start with a few honorable mentions on their menu: Israel boycott, pushing boycotts of Jews on campuses, summer camps on anti-Semitism, and their anti-military lockstep. (they love everything about big government except robust defense?) But factor in the cadre of other issues above and you have a volatile cocktail.

Along comes  Condoleezza Rice and their wrath pours out. Not like she’s Ann Coulter but the same treatment applies. That was only on the heels of Ayaan Hirsi Ali being dis-invited to speak at Brandeis because she did not represent their values. Cair protests and the University of Michigan shuts out the film “Honor Diaries” – calling it hate Anyone speaking to them has to meet their ideological criteria or they get the banner of protest. (that alone rallies their support) Now they won’t tolerate anyone out of lockstep. It sends a powerful, albeit chilling, message to others. If you marginally disagree, you might as well be in full disagreement. Well, not quite your Aunt Nelly’s bra-burning liberals.

Then we have the old standard of the Left, racism. Used to maintain control and intimidation on their enemies, it is their accusation of choice, freely applied. The way it plays out though is the best case against the left. It’s not only militant, it is radical to the core. So the rabid way it treats others is particularly aggressive on campuses where it strives to set the culture precedent for the rest of us. Going after anything perceived racist, or related to Israel, and believing UN and the human rights campaign are its personal tools inspires their activism and emboldens their radical posturing.

I’ve concluded it is now more a culture of intolerance. We’ve had political correctness for decades. Now it is full ‘offense’. More like pc swat teams, pc paratroopers, pc snipers, and a whole armament assembling to deal with their perceived grievances. I’d say they managed to bring all the issues to bear, unified, to make their case. Breaching one pet grievance is to breach their entire code of conduct. If only one side, theirs, sees it as an all out war, then we have a problem. One should no sooner dismiss this open assault than dismiss the Islamic extremists’ and terrorists’ agenda.

In fact, progressives, Democrats, ‘Liberals’, Marxists, and multiculturalists can see bigotry just about everywhere: from the Internet, to reality TV, to board rooms, to talk radio and sports. Everywhere it seems except where blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by progressive orthodoxy; institutionalized in Universities, on campuses, in the administration, bureaucracy, in the Left, the grievance industry, the LGBT movement, the environmental movement, in Party politics and their conventions, or Islamic radicals. Those are just some highlights of what passes for the progressive left’s politics today — which usurps almost every facet of culture.

RightRing | Bullright

Democrats’ band of Boogeymen

Gas Attack

Column: How Democratic donors benefit financially from climate policy
BY: Matthew Continetti | Free Beacon
March 21, 2014

Some lies just won’t go away. In February the Washington Post published an article with the following headline: “Why There’s No Democratic Version of the Koch Brothers’ Organization.” It was the umpteenth attempt to explain, in a particularly simplistic manner, how the millionaires and billionaires who donate money to the Democratic Party are nothing, absolutely nothing, like those meanie cancer research philanthropists Charles and David Koch.

The author, Reid Wilson, interviewed “Democratic strategists who deal frequently with high-dollar donors,” and these Democratic strategists told him, strategically, that their high-dollar donors are better than Republican ones. “For the Koch brothers, electing the right candidate can mean a financial windfall,” Wilson wrote. “Democratic donors revolve more around social issues.” On the one hand you have petty, greedy rich men, and on the other you have committed liberals willing to sacrifice for causes they believe in. The morality play writes itself.

Now, these liberals are not totally selfless, Wilson cautions. They are human beings; they have egos; they seek affirmation. “Donors like being recognized for their philanthropic gestures.” Hedge-fund billionaire and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer, for example, “cooperated with the New Yorker when it wrote a profile of him last year.” Charles and David Koch, though, “didn’t cooperate when the magazine took a look at their political activities,” presumably because “no one needs to send the message that the better-known Koch brothers are there for Republican candidates.” So that’s why the Kochs didn’t talk to Jane Mayer.

Does Reid Wilson believe in Santa Claus? His willingness to suspend disbelief when confronted with the image of a mythic creature—the un-self-interested liberal—suggests as much. The words “labor” and “union” appear nowhere in his article, despite the fact that unions are 6 of the 10 top all-time donors recently compiled by OpenSecrets.org, despite the fact that unions spent some $4.4 billion on politics between 2005 and 2011. (Incidentally, every member of the OpenSecrets.org top ten either leaned Democratic or split money evenly between the two parties. The Democrats are not hurting for money.) [A lot to ignore there]

Unions, their leadership, and their staff see political giving as “an investment,” any non-cross-eyed observer of the political scene would agree, with donations laundered back to the SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, UAW, and others in the form of generous and unsustainable pensions, wage laws benefiting closed shops over free labor, government-mandated dues and contracts, and job protections that make it difficult even for child predators to be fired from schools. That’s an ROI the hosts of the Shark Tank would envy.

Nor did Wilson see fit to mention trial lawyers and other attorneys, whose giving disproportionately favors the Democratic Party, and who are repaid for their donations with opposition to tort reform, and with increased regulations that amount to permanent employment programs for attorneys practicing regulatory, tax, M&A, antitrust, and campaign finance law. But perhaps lawyers don’t figure in Wilson’s calculus. We all know how altruistic and big-hearted they are.

“The coordination between big donors that the Koch network so ably facilitates just doesn’t exist on the Democratic side,” Wilson writes. His Democratic sources must not have been invited to the recent meetings of the Democracy Alliance, the secret organization of liberal donors that coordinates giving and builds campaign infrastructure. His sources must not be members of the Democracy Initiative, a vast coalition of liberal interest groups that meets to plan strategy, or of the Campaign for America’s Future. His sources must never have contributed to the online donation clearinghouse Act Blue. Of all of the thousands of Democratic strategists circling the D.C. waters for prey, Wilson seems to have spoken to the poorest and least connected ones available.

I thought of Wilson’s puerile article this week, as I read remarks by White House adviser John Podesta. The day before Podesta’s interview with a roundtable of journalists, several environmental groups had written to the president, urging him not to lift export bans on American liquid natural gas (LNG). Podesta dismissed the environmentalists’ request.

“If you oppose all fossil fuels and you want to turn that switch off tomorrow, that is a completely impractical way of moving toward a clean-energy future,” he said, defending the use of natural gas. The greens are “impractical.” LNG is the best available alternative to coal-fired power plants, which the White House and EPA want to shut down. “I think we remain committed to developing the resource and using it, and we think there’s an advantage, particularly in the electricity generation sector, to move it forward.”

For the Politico reporter who transcribed Podesta’s remarks, the former lobbyist, Clinton chief of staff, and president of the Center for American Progress was not “afraid to part ways with his former compatriots to make the case for the president’s climate agenda, a topic he said he spends about half his time working on.” (How does he spend the other half?) In fact the comments were nothing new. Podesta has long supported natural gas.

He’s not alone. His 2012 Wall Street Journal op-ed making the case for natural gas was coauthored with Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund billionaire who is quickly becoming one of the most powerful men in the Democratic Party. Steyer is known mainly for his opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, and for his recent pledge to raise and spend $100 million on behalf of Democrats in this year’s elections. According to Reid Wilson, liberal donors such as Steyer “aren’t going to realize a profit if their chosen candidates win.” This is not true.

Steyer pledged to remove himself from the operations of his hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management, in the waning days of 2012, when he was being considered as a possible secretary of Energy in the second Obama administration. But he remains an “outside limited partner” with the firm, and the “bulk” of his billion-dollar fortune is parked there. As of 2012, when Steyer was supporting Democrats, donating millions to Podesta’s Center for American Progress, and otherwise championing natural gas over other forms of energy, Farallon held more than $7 million in shares of gas technology company Fuel Systems Solutions. He was making plenty of money from the Obama administration’s championing of natural gas.

As of the end of 2013, Farallon also held close to $40 million in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone Pipeline. When Farallon’s position in Kinder Morgan was exposed last summer—after the Keystone debate had been raging for years—Steyer pledged to sell his share of the stock and donate the profits to charity. Last September, it was revealed that Steyer had backed a UT study on hydraulic fracturing, which showed that the process does not result in dangerous methane emissions. As far as I can determine, Steyer remains an adviser to and backer of EFW Partners, a “global investor in the basic resources critical for economic growth: energy, food, and water.” I wonder whether EFW is short or long on LNG.

Just as Politico was publishing its write-up of Podesta’s defense of natural gas, George Soros, another ultraliberal billionaire hedge-fund manager, was increasing his stake in oil and gas company Penn Virginia Corporation. Shares of Penn Virginia spiked on the news that Soros’s fund would take a more active role in restructuring the company, which extracts both shale oil and natural gas. Soros of course is one of the most famous Democratic donors in the world, an architect of the Democracy Alliance, a founder of the Center for American Progress, and a backer of Priorities USA, the Obama Super PAC that, under the leadership of Democratic empire-builder Jim Messina, is shifting its allegiance to Hillary Clinton. George Soros’s net worth is some $23 billion. And we are supposed to pretend that he is not benefiting financially from the energy policies of the Democrats he puts into office.

Pretense and make-believe are thick in the air in Barack Obama’s Washington, where one’s alignment with the regnant values and priorities—one’s allegiance to, or at the very least one’s acquiescence in, the programs of the environmental lobby, the union lobby, the abortion lobby—acts as a sort of baptism, cleansing the ethical and intellectual impurities associated with conservatism, and elevating one to a higher stage of moral development, of righteousness, to a place of clean living and pure intentions where one’s motivations must not be questioned. If only we could capture and export Washington’s emissions of self-deception and gullibility, of media naïveté and partisanship, of the hot air we produce as we convince ourselves that all parties are equal but some parties are more equal than others. That would be a true energy revolution, a genuine “financial windfall.” *

Its hard for me to believe that Democrats or their media water carriers can even expect to be taken seriously on this, especially on organization and networking which they pride themselves on. If you want the hypocrisy angle, there it is in 3D. Just mentioning the list of exhaustive connections takes an awful lot of ink. But then who would deny it? (they call the right deniers)

Look at all the things Sorros has been connected to including Air America, that leftist radio mouthpiece. Or look at media matters and all the interconnected progressive operatives, just as that whole ‘shadow government’ network installed after Clinton left office. Then to say there is no equivalent to the Koch brothers? Surely you jest. But when the Democrats read such postured tripe, they take it as fact. Then it is merely repeated — the debate is over — through their vast echo chamber of mouthpieces. (Aka. daily mentions)

Why there’s no Democratic version of the Koch brothers organization –WaPo

But for the Democratic professionals who actually run campaigns, the thing that frustrates them most about the Koch brothers network is that there’s no real equivalent on their side.

There are, to be sure, groups of Democratic donors who raise big bucks just like Republicans — the Majority PAC, the House Majority PAC, EMILY’s List, the Democracy Alliance. There are just as many individual Democratic donors who cut seven-figure checks, and who become boogeymen for Republicans, from Tim Gill to Tom Steyer to George Soros. But the coordination between big donors that the Koch network so ably facilitates just doesn’t exist on the Democratic side.

Its the old tactic: accuse others of what you yourself are doing. They are very practiced at it. They thought that just mentioning a few of the well-known operators on the left, and dismissing interconnections, would mitigate what is really their central strategy.

Congratulations to Matthew Continetti for connecting the dots.

RightRing | Bullright