Obama warns: dangers of social media

Oh, it’s another little helpful warning from Obama’s bully police. Something to take very seriously, har har.

Washington Examiner

Obama, who was interviewed by Prince Harry for the BBC, did not mention Trump by name, though his comments appeared to be directed at Trump who frequently takes to Twitter to express himself.

“One of the dangers of the Internet is that people can have entirely different realities,” Obama said. “They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases.”

“The question has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn’t lead to a Balkanization of society and allows ways of finding common ground.”

Mr. Irresponsibility himself lectures us. I don’t know about everybody else, but I’m sick of his lectures.

From the guy who it turns out did absolutely nothing in response to all the dangers on social media and threats he was supposedly seeing.

A serious WaPo story had the rundown of the timeline where Obama didn’t seem to care much about any of that.

Closer to home for Americans, Russian government trolls in 2012 went after a U.S. ambassador for the first time on social media, inundating his Twitter account with threats.

But for U.S. officials, the real wake-up call came in early 2014 when the Russians annexed Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. An intercepted Russian military intelligence report dated February 2014 documented how Moscow created fake personas to spread disinformation on social media to buttress its broader military campaign.

Imagine this lecture coming from the guy who never got any real opposition on anything? The guy who used social media as his personal playground for all his drooling sycophants to dominate the airwaves. The Obama that couldn’t get him enough FB attention — with his hordes of fake followers on social media. Sickening to listen to this crap he spews.

What about the dangers from what he did? The danger of his 20 trillion dollar debt? The danger of ignoring the largest crime-terrorist organization to get some phony deal with Iran? His web of deceit really has no ends.

We had 8 years of this threat-in-chief in the White House undermining government, weaponizing information and their politicization of every department. Now, he is worried about social media — very dangerous. Balkanization? Surely you are joking. That’s why he came out talking about dangers of our social media, to divert from his record.

And, by the way, all of those things well before Donald Trump ever appeared on the scene. Now all their fingers point to Trump. What hubris, deflection and deception. Now they need to have an investigation into Trump! Really, absurd.

Advertisements

Connecting the Soros Dots

Secretive Liberal Donor Summit Increases Security, Changes Itinerary Following Free Beacon Report

Deep-pocketed donors meet in California to plot 2018 ‘resistance’ and game plan
Washington Free Beacon

CARLSBAD, Calif.—Members of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive dark money liberal donor network, appear to have moved to increase security presence and alter its schedule at its fall donor summit following a Washington Free Beacon report released Friday morning based off the group’s internal documents.

The high-dollar progressive donors, who each vow to direct at least $200,000 in funding to approved left-wing groups of the alliance, are currently gathered at the posh La Costa Resort located in Carlsbad, Calif., for its three-day fall investment conference to plot their 2018 “resistance” and game plan.

The Free Beacon, who appears to be the only members of the media on site covering the conference, has obtained internal documents meant only for attendees that detail the conference’s agenda and those who are currently at the gathering. Janell Ross, a Washington Post reporter, is allegedly at the summit, but is listed as being on a “getting the economic narrative right” panel at the conference.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/secretive-liberal-donor-summit-increases-security-changes-itinerary-following-free-beacon-report/

Well, do they do anything that is not secretive, and having to do with raising lots of money to support their radicals and their agenda?

And Free Beacon stumbles upon a Washington Post political reporter who attended just to help assist them in crafting a message strategy.

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

Justifiable Insurrection

In 2008, WaPo gave this glowing endorsement of Obama. Years later, it proves revealing and pretty laughable. It only reveals the larger agenda. This was their basic conclusion:

Abroad, the best evidence suggests that [Obama] would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

But remember that up until that point, Obama had no experience. So this and all other uber-confidence in him was just that, empty. Funny as well that a chief criticism of theirs against McCain was his choice as a running mate. Inexperienced and incompetent were the buzz words for Sarah Palin. Yet in a following paragraph of the endorsement, openly admit that their confidence in Obama was solely a matter of hope.

If this is how the left picks their candidates, is it any wonder why we end up with what we have? They stand in lockstep in a parade of hope, even as Rome is burning. In fact, the only hint of experience in foreign policy was his position on the NATO oversight committee, where he had not held a meeting before his campaign. Then scarcely had a year in national office before running for the oval office, with no experience in tow for any of it. The guy actually had to use his campaign for his résumé .

Yet this and other mainstream media geniuses went head over heel for him. But that wasn’t even the worst of it. They could try to explain their endorsement by such terms as hope, while at the same time applying a full-court opposition to Sarah Palin, running at the bottom of the Republican ticket. It was so obviously hypocritical and even in face of that, they continued to justify their support for empty-suit Obama.

It was a culmination of a 45 year insurrection by ’60s radicals. Most of us knew that, including media sycophants. Yet they did it anyway, unapologetically. This is just one text book example of it, and how far they were willing to go to condemn any opposition to a guy totally unqualified for the hope they bestowed on him. Almost as if they new it was a complete charade. (if they didn’t they should have)

Their charge was that Bush “has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.

Political Wilderness? So a unique peek into their collective mind. They wanted a complete insurrection, not just a Leftist radical. They wanted a total insurgency of Government, from those who best understood the radical nature of insurrection, radicals. A reformer – as McCain billed himself — was not what they had in mind. If they had to put all their confidence in a blank resume from an empty suit, then so be it.

They wanted a total makeover, and America got totally screwed. Maybe the latter was the motivation for the former.

The best though, was how they opened their endorsement:

“Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president. The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama’s relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.” (my emphasis)

That’s right, did you see that 180. It was so quick.  But you cannot miss that kind of contradiction.  From blaming their decision on Palin for not being ready for the presidency, to their “enormous hopes” in Obama . What is enormous hope, for what? Was their hope the same as Barry’s? I don’t know how many times I’ve said it since then: the irony was the secular left ran a “faith-based campaign” —  and they never even defined what hope was supposed to be. They were never forced to. It’s a nostalgic embarrassment and an insult to the foundation of America now, and matters nothing to the Left.

Obamacare is a perfect metaphor for Obama. Who cares if the thing is right, if it works, or if it does what they claimed it would? Once done, it’s done. The biggest defense of ObamaCare now is that it is “the law of the Land” and you cannot undo it — no mater how it got there. Sound familiar?

Then they elaborated on Obama:

At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation.

And there you have it, “we believe” — their faith-based campaign of “hope and change”…. “change you can believe in”.

Who cares what hope and change meant then? It’s an evolving, subjective term. It can mean something entirely different now than it did then. And they still ask people to just keep believing — many still do? To them, it was justifiable insurrection.

They were talking about McCain here:
He hasn’t come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive.” — sounds very familiar. They later added: “IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship.

And they finished it off this way. (oh the torture of it all)

ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama’s résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.”

But Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; *preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

How about that for a closer? Creative. His temperament is okay, forget the lack of any formidable experience, or proven ability.

“Eloquent master of substance and detail”. You can’t even say that about his speeches, which was the only thing he ever had — “Words, just words?” Note, they even they had to project, based on his book, what he might do.

“Eager to hear opposing points of view?” Where did that come from. He never was, and he got a lot better at it with more practice. Absurd. And their “faith-based campaign” endorsement was complete. Obama could have sported a Che Guevara tee-shirt with a scythe in his hand, and they still would have endorsed him.

Preternatural:
“The preternatural is that which appears outside or beside the natural. Preternatural phenomena are presumed to have natural explanations that are unknown.”

Say no more….

As bad as the campaign and gushing, incompetent voters were, it was only the setup for the next stage.

Reference http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html

RightRing | Bullright