DNC Melltdown

As midterm elections start to heat up, with all the primaries going off in every state, you might see enthusiasm among Democrats. You might even think they are the ones with the unified momentum. Well, you may be wrong if you do. I’m not spinning it, I don’t need to.

Here’s why, first. Take a good look at the bare cupboards in the DNC. Then take a glance at their big funders. You know who they are: Tom Steyer to George Soros and a basket of others. It is not as important who they are as what they are. They are the hair on fire, far-left radicals that drive the Party. But more importantly, drive any base. DNC is out.

–(Open Secrets)———-Total Raised——–Total Spent——Cash on Hand——–Debts
Democratic Party——–$510,732,825—-$405,218,739—-$139,922,483—-$11,902,719
Republican Party——–$630,554,660—-$426,703,807—-$150,139,527—–$1,650,056
Demo National Cmte —$110,040,264—-$112,645,182——$9,185,284——-$6,353,378
Repub National Cmte –$213,054,677—-$187,695,079—–$50,687,610————$0

And now there is a fairly new big player, not really new. The ACLU has been stepping in, or should I say kicking in to drive many races. So they are in more than ever. We are literally now running against ACLU and Planned Parenthood.Chelsea tipped their hand. Twist Roe into economics, if your economic message is as vacuous as your political one.

But then look at the DNC coffers. They aren’t just empty, they are in big debt. Not only are they on the financial verge of bankruptcy but the Party is bankrupt on ideas as well. They still blame Obama who left the Party in shambles. Then Hillary. There is very little cash on hand and a lot of debt. What do these factors mean?

Enter my opinion and just that. They will manage because they always find a way to flow some money. However, what is happening is the big funders, i.e. special funders and special interests will fill the gap. People are not funding the party, instead putting gas in the tanks of candidates and causes. Money is flowing around the DNC. Read again, Democrats are not funding their own Party. It is all but irrelevant, at least as any central Party apparatus. By design? I doubt it. They just cannot fund it. And who would put much confidence in it after the way it worked in 2016? So they are going around it. No credibility is telling.

Don’t just take my word for it, listen to others make the case. A WaPo opinion piece by Ed Rogers in June described the dire Democrat Party conditions as unraveling. (I refuse to call it Democratic) And now good reason to use that term instead of their preferred one.

In the meantime, the Democratic Party appears to be dismantling itself. Outside groups are fighting their own fights, donors are being pulled away, and potential Democratic presidential candidates show no sign of being party-builders. If you believe in the two-party system, you know this isn’t good. Party discipline has eroded, and that makes it harder to govern once a party is elected to power. We need reforms that empower parties and candidates and diminish the influence of deep-pocketed plutocrats and narrowly focused interest groups.

Well then, is the fat lady warming up her vocal chords? All he can do is make the case for the “two party system”. But is it really a two party system anymore, I mean really? Regardless of how the DNC finances look, is it half of a two party system? I don’t think so. Even the author points to the non cohesive and unconventional funding. What does that say? I don’t see a party unity. It’s a grab bag of mostly socialist ideas bickering for turf. While Bernie might be ecstatic, when the dog finally catches the car what happens?

I think they have big problems. Maybe they are all smoking some real good stuff over there but how about the unity and love? It’s not there. While the Republicans are unified, to some greater degree on issues and a platform, Democrats are flailing about making a lot of noise, with no central theme or purpose. Many years ago I would have prayed for this scenario, a disunited party and bad if any leadership. Worse yet for them, seems no one can reign in the Party or their dire finances. It’s broke. But the people of the party are broke apart too. The screaming and yelling make up for, or paper over, the empty shell that remains of a party. There’s nothing there.

They can trot out the Alinsky stuff, bring out the Marxist ideas, plug in their socialist values, get fired up for a few key races, do a few marches and fundraisers; but in the end, what do you really have? A hot mess that’s what. The great divide in overdrive.

It would be a mistake to try to run an election against an empty bankruted party. What do you focus on? There is nothing there? Call it what it is. Before you get too excited, we still run against the socialist party they are, only we are not running against a party structure. You are basically running against all these splintered special interest groups. Though the only thing that does tie any of it together is a socialist agenda. That is where the energy is. You can no longer say or talk to the moderate, sane ones, or adults in the room. peel off a few. There are none. Everyone is just out for their thing, whatever bad acid trip it is. But they are a long way from any resemblance to unity, virtually on anything.

Sure they agree on issues here and there, but not on direction or a central vision. They want to abolish ICE and do something to cops and hate Trump. They are the anti-party now. Their resistance is all that defines them or unites them. That may be where the solidarity is but there’s a random hodgepodge everywhere else, including in funding which does matter. That funding is a collection of special interests. You could call them a party of special interests, but even that wouldn’t be really fair. Even special interest have more cohesive unity than that. The people are not really united. It’s a giant illusion. We shouldn’t fall for thinking that it is some solidly united party. What is missing?

Any defining leadership – MIA. Nancy Pelosi recently made statements to reinforce her leadership but then she blamed the press and media for trying to divide them. Wow, a tell that is. Blaming the press now? Bad when you have to blame the strongest allies of the Party. And media has drifted along its own far left course. Nancy may be on an isle all by herself. Does she dare take on media? She can’t. They are all she has to try to control it.

In the last almost two months, I see nothing that has improved or changed for Democrats. It’s still a party of misfits. Interesting that this whole meltdown happens at this time, when Republicans are unified in issues and a message with Trump having consolidated his approval. It looks like a time to close the deal. I mean any questions have been resolved and Party unity high, we now know what he can do, we’ve seen it. All we need is the how. And that is where the midterms come in, with a new Supreme Justice on the way, and tax cuts in the rear view, we have a good economic message. So there are problems, so what? There are always problems. But this kind of unity can’t be wasted at such a time when our enemy (opponents) have none.

Put it this way, politically, the trends on the other side are not positive. They are negative. And what they are really running on is all negative. Who can get behind that with any enthusiasm? I know, never underestimate the Party of Stalin. But Republicans seem to have found their voice, finally, and the fog is lifting. They’re perpetually underestimated.

The fork is ready….the lady is standing in the wings getting anxious. Someone could say but in the end, the Democrats always unify. Except on what this time? There’s nothing cohesive there, like their bank accounts.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

Soros’ ship skipped the port of call

This just in:
Soros lost a billion on the election of Donald Trump, it has been revealed. Oops!

According to the WSJ, “George Soros lost nearly $1 billion as a result of the stock-market rally spurred by Donald Trump’s surprise presidential election.”

Left still in panic, jump mode. All flights to Canada have been canceled. (not really)

Wish he would have bet it all. That would solve so many of our problems.

Soros hits campaign trail running mouth

Surprise, Soros calls to resist Cruz and Trump. But who is we?

SOROS: We must ‘resist the siren song of the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz’

Business Insider By Colin Campbel

Billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros warned in a Monday op-ed that Republican presidential candidates were following a belief that endangers “open society” with how they frame the fight against the Islamic State terror group.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/soros-must-resist-siren-song-172209465.html

In Soros’ op-ed piece in the Guardian:

Jihadi terrorist groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaida have discovered the Achilles heel of our western societies: the fear of death. Through horrific attacks and macabre videos, the publicists of Isis magnify this fear, leading otherwise sensible people in hitherto open societies to abandon their reason.

Scientists have discovered that emotion is an essential component of human reasoning. That discovery explains why jihadi terrorism poses such a potent threat to our societies: the fear of death leads us and our leaders to think – and then behave – irrationally.

The irony of Soros lecturing about fear is rich . Fear and the emotional argument substituting for reason is the fuel Obama and the Democrats run on. The emotion that leads their environmental policies, fear that leads their global warming charge. Fear was the foundation of Obamacare and emotion was the chaser. Fear of conservatives and the right is how they campaign and sell their candidates. Emotions long ago replaced reason and scientific method for the Left. Fear of gov’t shutdown. Democrats use fear as a tool.

And faith is very much in style with Democrats. Change you can believe in” was a whole presidential campaign — based on no science, facts or rational reason — wrapped in emotions. Words like fundamental transformation are euphemisms for the “change” they seek. “Debate is over” become tag lines for shutting down dissent. If that doesn’t end it, then apply the RICO statute to prosecute skeptics and deniers. Does that all sound rational, reasonable, and void of emotion? No. Resist the siren of the Soros puppet squad.

Soros is only doing something else the Marxists do so well, projection. Always accuse your opponent of what you yourself are doing. It is very Lenin-esque.

But emotion is how they package their message, campaign, and argument. It is inseparable.
Now a word from a leading Democrat sponsor, from when dissent was cool.


Case study in projection — the emotional change, hope salesman:
The great false hope “the moment… we restored our image as the last best hope on earth”.

Maybe no fear (of the reaper) works for king Georgy, and Barry.
Rational people would disagree.

However, since the subject of his attack was serious in nature on Islamic terrorism and ISIS et al, then it is worth exploring deeper . Of course the element of fear terrorists employ is very real. Yes, it is their goal. But no, having some element of fear, for the entire situation, does not mean one has succumbed to the agenda of the terrorists. Remember their political ideology, terrorism agenda, is multi-pronged. Fear is the ingredient that drives their desired reactions. But if it does not get their desired results then the objective failed. The whole point of terrorism is to force political their objectives. It is how the fear is channeled that is critical. Though fear is deemed good when channeled to Democrats.

Having no fear is the definition of fearless. Being free of fear in the face of terrorism is not enough. More importantly, one has to have the correct reaction to the terrorism. Giving them what they want is not a successful option for opposing or defeating terrorism. Ceding the terrorists’ ground is not winning. And in most cases, a respectful amount of fear is a good thing. Being fearless is strategically dangerous.

I’m sick of these tired arguments of “that is what terrorists want.” I.e. terrorists want Americans’ boots on the ground over there fighting them. Do they really? I highly doubt that. The other important thing we must understand is propaganda. Why should we carry their propaganda for them. Why shouldn’t we oppose it? We’ve fallen victim to their propaganda. Closing Gitmo is a recruiting tool, so we must shut it down. Really? Ridiculous. Islamic terrorists want and expect us to be politically correct, too. So why are we giving them the p/c they want? Then I always trust Soros on all things ISIS.(not)

But why give them what they want by adopting their propaganda into our dialogue? What they want is to influence debate and opinion here. I’m sure you could find some of the same arguments in their propaganda magazines as you hear right out of Democrats’ mouths, like “it’s a war on Islam”. The truth is they’ve declared war on us in the name of Islam.

But fear is a resource when Democrats use it as a tool — even while criticizing ‘fear’– and a powerful motivator. The Marxist Left have proved they care nothing about right or wrong, but only how people feel about it. Perception is reality, fear is a means. Skeptics beware.

RightRing | Bullright

Moscow has no room for Soros

Apparently, George Soros is receiving a persona non grata from Russia. But not to worry, he has friends in high places.

State Department ‘troubled’ by Moscow’s move against Soros groups

Fox News

The U.S. State Department says it is “troubled” by Russia’s decision to ban two of liberal billionaire George Soros’ pro-democracy charities and label the organizations a threat to national security.

“Today’s designation of the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation as so-called ‘undesirable’ organizations will only further restrict the work of civil society in Russia for the benefit of the Russian people,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Monday. “This action is yet another example of the Russian Government’s growing crackdown on independent voices and a deliberate step to further isolate the Russian people from the world.”

See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/01/state-department-troubled-by-moscows-move-against-soros-groups.html

Moscow, we have a problem.

Since when is it necessary for the State Dept to stand up and defend Soros and his meddling? How dare Russia restrict the progressive Marxist’s ‘main-squeeze’ Soros!

Gotta love that: the pro-gay, same-sex marriage pushing, George Soros led, meddling State Department has issues with Moscow. Obama’s State turned foreign affairs into, well, ‘Foreign Affairs‘. How much help will Obama’s executive pen be with this?

A smattering of black lives matter

Back in January this year, the Washington Times had a great article written by Kelly Rendell that described the long connected tentacles of Soros’ money within the Left, to these coordinated, seemingly rogue, organizations. An excellent piece of investigative journalism. Now that money, around 33 million documented just in the span of a year, in the article is instrumental in promoting these far left radicals and the protest movement’s combination of riots, civil disobedience activism, rabble rousing, harassing politicians and calling for killing cops.(sort of like OWS)

In May, Washington Times reported: (cut the check, please)

FrontPage Magazine reports that Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) has been paying protesters $5,000 a month to demonstrate in Ferguson. Last week, hired protesters who haven’t been paid held a sit-in at MORE’s offices and posted a demand letter online.

MORE is the re-branded Missouri branch of ACORN, which filed for bankruptcy in late 2010, FrontPage reported. MORE and other groups supporting the Black Lives Matter movement have received millions of dollars from billionaire financier George Soros.

It used to be radicals were on the fringe. The Weather Underground was considered fairly fringe even back in its hay day. The larger than life Bill Ayers was still underground as a fugitive as were others. Of course, the justice department then was investigating them. They were taken serious. And they were also considered terrorists.

But unlike then, today they have made radical groups mainstream and considered as just another voice of the Left. They are welcomed political allies.And they very much influence public dialogue and events. Like Black Lives Matter. It has used the same inflammatory rhetoric as terrorists and radicals in the past. But today that rhetoric is considered mainstream on the Left.

So in an act of endorsement,the DNC summer meeting approved a resolution in support of Black Lives Matter, apparently for its contributions. But then in a twist of irony, the BLM group denounced the DNC’s vote of support, in true radical style, issuing a statement that said in part:

“True change requires real struggle, and that struggle will be in the streets and led by the people, not by a political party.”

One could see Bill Ayers or maybe Rev Wright doing a similar dissing to the DNC to make a political point. Mostly because, in their view, progressives and the DNC are not far enough Left for them.

Along in that January investigative piece was a sort of disclaimer that the parent and funding organization does not control the protesters’ actions. In other words, retains a faux deniability when the going gets rough, even though they make payments to rent-a-protestors in the movement.

“The incidents, whether in Staten Island, Cleveland or Ferguson, were spontaneous protests — we don’t have the ability to control or dictate what others say or choose to say,” Mr. Zimmerman said. “But these circumstances focused people’s attention — and it became increasingly evident to the social justice groups involved that what a particular incident like Ferguson represents is a lack of accountability and a lack of democratic participation.”

Other Soros-funded groups made it their job to remotely monitor and exploit anything related to the incident that they could portray as a conservative misstep, and to develop academic research and editorials to disseminate to the news media to keep the story alive.

These groups would be perfect recruit mechanisms for ex-cons or those with lengthy records.But it cannot be denied that they are Soros funded and sponsored. Now we have celebrities and other wealthy liberals donating to the Black Lives Matter cause, presumably by donating to the parent organization, and praised for it.

The Millennial Activists United put out a letter backing those pay complaints in May

In the last few days, Bill O’Reilly went on a tear about BLM, formerly branding them a hate group in view of rhetoric in their latest marches and the cop execution in Texas. He declared to some who would not go that far, “I’m going to put them out of business.” So does that mean he is now at war with Soros? Drive them out of business, does he even realize what all that involves? It’s nice to know your enemies too.

Some sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/hired-black-lives-matter-protesters-start-cutthech/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257130/ferguson-rent-mobs-exposed-matthew-vadum
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-theo-spur/?page=all

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