Politicizing Petroleum Policy

The Putin Russia invasion of Ukraine has exposed the tender underbelly where oil intersects public policy and where war intersects climate. But the Left simply forgets that oil and energy is a national security issue.

It is fruitless to even talk about hypocrisy anymore. But in the hearings with the big oil companies, it has gone further than just hypocrisy. Democrats want it both ways. They want immediate increased production but they make no bones they want to cut the oil market completely. Last year, they wanted massive cuts in oil and fossil fuel production. All to appease their radical left, climatology political agenda. 

Democrats don’t want to cut production, they want to eliminate it. Wipe it forever off the face of the earth. So while they cry now demanding more, they actually want zero.

But consumers know the basic fact very well of a market relying on supply and demand. They know that ultra high prices require more production to alleviate those high costs. Prices may appear out of control but the industry is increasingly more controlled by government and radical politicians.

The Democrats don’t mind begging from unfriendly dictators who don’t like us much. Actually, they gave them all that leverage over us for free.

The problem is there are environmental impacts of so-called renewables. They require minerals, mining and indeed have an affect on environment. Calling them “clean renewables” is an oxymoron. Plastics are another example of endless oil products. How many plastics are incorporated into their green-dream products? And you will have the same hoarding potential and environmental difficulties in ramping up renewable markets. We already see it around the world. The same departments that control and obfuscate the oil sector will plague the renewable sector. Government control does that.

For years, people railed against a government command economy — not to be confused with supply and demand markets –for exactly that reason. It sort of takes market problems out of the equation.

At one time maybe Democrats only lusted for full control of the oil industry, the way Putin controls it in Russia. Now they simply want to eliminate it altogether. Once upon a time we called it a war on coal, then it became a war on fossil fuels and evolved into a full-blown war on energy. They claimed that was not so, but now they  boast about a war against all fossil fuel energy.

Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths; they want it both ways.

I listened to the hearings just to come away with one conclusion. If Democrats wanted to be lobbyists against big oil — for renewables — they could do that. But they are elected to Congress to represent the interests of the country. And if Joe Biden wanted to be a union organizer, like Obama, he could have been one. But that is not the job of the president.

Things that have made this country run and improved our lives for years, creating millions of jobs, are now preferred targets of society. They simply have no respect for how we got here. In fact, there is an effort to erase the entire roadmap. Well, there is always satire.

Paul Revere’s Ride

“Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five:
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow – 1807-1882

But when Paul Revere rode out to alarm fellow countrymen, his horse emitted large amounts of waste in the process. Shouldn’t we factor in the age of the horse, with how much gas and waste it produced over its lifetime? Or how many people – white, black or Native Americans — who were negatively affected by these equestrian contributions? Must not we calibrate all those numbers into a new formula? Surely, based on a quick summary, we could see that the horse negatively impacted the environment, and humans, more than it benefited us all.

So it is long past time to take some retributive actions against these equestrian terrorists of the environment. Sure, the horse might have  made Paul Revere’s trip possible but at what calamitous cost to the earth? If we only knew or realized then what we now know , we could have prevented all that pain.

Paul — the meddling silversmith and industrialist he was — did not need to make his dumb trip for starters. And that asinine horse did not need to contribute to the “equitable” decay of our environment and climate, even for generations to come. This we can see clearly now because we have been awakened to the accumulative catastrophe of our deeds. 

We did all that. Why the hell were horses not taxed for their environmental impact? No, instead we encouraged their use. This only compounded the problems. So based on any summary analysis on the subject, I can therefore say the entire horse industry contributed to the decline in our climate. That’s just a fact. Anything we can do to eliminate it, and nip the damage in the tail, would only benefit our clean American future.

Revere should have relaxed, stayed home, euthanized the damn horse, and saved us all from our current fate. What a selfish bastard he turned out to be. Well, at least they could have increased the cost of horses to an unaffordable level so no idiot would have a chance to consider such a stunt, or misguided trip. ~~ Not so satirical end.


However, even more egregious with oil, they don’t want to just eliminate the industry, they want to politicize the entire industry. We’ve seen this in every government agency. Now they want to do the same thing to virtually every company, especially big oil.

How that shakes out is demonstrated in the hearings themselves. Democrats bring CEOs in to rip them apart and demand they do this or that. So it automatically pairs Republicans with oil companies. After all, we are the only ones who believe they should exist.

Democrats have accused the oil companies of manipulating the market prices and profiteering, taking advantage of crises and current events. Democrats’ answer to those charges and high prices is to release the SPRO to manipulate market prices.

The other obvious conclusion is this shows why we do not ever want government in complete control of our energy, or companies who provide it. One day they want to cut supply and the next they want it increased, based primarily on their political objectives. That’s the way they run everything else they control, immigration for instance.

So then, what would it take to get rid of exorbitant high fuel prices? Get rid of half of Congress that has a fatwa against the industry. Then replace a radicalized president who cares more about his family’s lucrative income than America’s national security.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

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