Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label Fund Raising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fund Raising. Show all posts

Friday, July 19, 2024

Was Covering Up Biden’s Condition a Quarter Billion Dollar Fraud?

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog 

 

“Last month I co-hosted the single largest fund-raiser supporting any Democratic candidate ever, for President Biden’s re-election,” former ER actor George Clooney revealed in a New York Times op-ed calling for him to drop out. “It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe ‘big F-ing deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate.”

At the fundraiser, George Clooney called Biden a star instead of telling the truth about him.

Did the movie star reveal his misgivings to any of those who contributed $30 million at the fundraiser? Or to those in his circle of acquaintances who would go on to attend other $2,500 a plate fundraisers for Biden in the Los Angeles area? Or did he keep quiet until now?

According to Clooney, who also got Obama to sign off on his attack, “this isn’t only my opinion; this is the opinion of every senator and Congress member and governor who I’ve spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly.”

That’s not just an indictment of Biden, but of Clooney, Obama and every Dem legislator who kept on raising millions for the presidential campaign of a candidate they knew was unfit.

The Clooney fundraiser outraised the previous $26 million fundraiser by Stephen Colbert, whose presence on CBS’ fading late night show is an undisclosed contribution by Paramount to the Democrats. Colbert has now also suggested that Biden might want to step down.

The two fundraisers were part of a much larger haul during which Biden raised $127 million last month with nearly a quarter of a billion dollars being held by his committees.

Those fundraisers were based on what Democrats, including some of those involved in the fundraisers, have now admitted was a lie: that Biden was a viable presidential candidate.

If even the partial haul of $264 million were treated as a fraud, it would be massive in scope.

After Biden’s debate disaster, one Democrat insider after another has come forward to reveal that they knew about his state. Some of those covering up the fraud benefited materially from the Biden campaign while others used their connection to it to obtain status and influence.

Certainly that would potentially apply to Joe Biden, to close Biden family members, allies and staffers as well as to a much larger circle of political operatives, consultants and donors who concealed the truth about his condition while encouraging donations to his political campaign.

The question “what did the president know and when did he know it” may be only so applicable to Joe Biden whom Special Counsel Robert Hur deemed likely to get off in any criminal case on account of presenting himself as an elderly man with a poor memory, but those around him have no such defense. And those who are now coming forward to denounce Biden are also in some cases potentially exposing themselves to criminal liability for their role in the cover-up.

If they had been selling a car, a house or pushing stock in a company that they knew was being fundamentally misrepresented as fit for its intended purpose, there would be a risk of liability.

Viewed as a fraudulent enterprise, the Biden campaign, its associated committees, PACs and the larger Democrat Party is staggering in scope. It might even be the single greatest fraud in American history in which a tremendous number of people were also aware of the fraud.

Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, who co-founded Fenway Strategies and served on the board of Let America Vote, claimed that, “It was not surprising to any of us who were at the fundraiser. I was there. Clooney was exactly right, and every single person I talked to at the fundraiser thought the same thing.” And Favreau made the decision to keep quiet about it.

“I remember my wife, Emily, turned to me after the fundraiser and said, ‘What are we going to do?’ And I said, ‘Well, there is a debate in a week. Either he’ll do well in the debate, and we’ll think he was just tired because he flew all the way back from Europe, and that’ll be that, or he’ll be like this at the debate and then the whole country will be talking about it. So, here we are.”

The decision by Democrats was to keep covering it up until it couldn’t be covered up anymore.

Some Dems had invested heavily in Biden already and were treating it as a pyramid scheme that they had to try and keep going at all costs. If we believe the Democrat operatives, media figures and other insiders who keep regaling us with how they knew about Biden’s condition, then much of the party continued to raise money even while hiding information that would have dissuaded donors from continuing to contribute to the Biden presidential campaign.

Since the debate, media reports describe donors refusing to donate or to take calls.

“Disastrous.” NBC News quoted a source in the Biden campaign, reporting that “the money has absolutely shut off.” Sources claimed that donations from large donors were “down by possibly half” or even according to one “much more.”

This establishes that donors would not have handed out the tens of millions that they did over the previous weeks, not to mention the much larger sums taken in during previous months, if they had been made aware of Biden’s true state. Democrat insiders knew of that. It is difficult then to see how hiding that information from donors while asking them to donate wasn’t fraud.

There’s potential civil liability for recruiters, much as there can be in a pyramid scheme in which the recruiters are aware that the larger campaign is fraudulent, but there may also be criminal liability as well should state or federal authorities choose to pursue this question.

Democrats are coming forward to accuse the Biden family of one of the largest frauds in history. But many, if not most of them, were aware of the fraud and chose to keep quiet for political, personal or financial reasons. Complicity in the quarter billion dollar fraud may be widespread.

The question is whether state and federal authorities will impose consequences on those who fundraised, who benefited and who kept on lying as long as the millions kept rolling in.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.

Friday, November 17, 2023

Leftist Dark Money Network Raised $1.3 Billion to Fund Progressive Activism in 2022.


The New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Windward Fund, Hopewell Fund, and North Fund managed by Arabella Advisors raised $1.3 billion in anonymous donations last year, according to new tax filings. The Arabella network has emerged as a major left-wing dark money conduit in recent years, with each fund able to hide its donors while acting as a sponsor for other left-wing nonprofits, thus avoiding the submission of revealing tax documents to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

“The North Fund is an advocacy nonprofit collaborating with community leaders and organizers to engage Americans in their democracy and fighting for equality across the country,” said one of the funds when quizzed on its activity. “We accomplish this through our fiscal sponsorship model, which allowed us to support a broad range of impactful partners in 2022,” it added.To Read More.................

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

Dem Senate Frontrunner Fundraises With Radical San Francisco Liberals to Flip Wisconsin

Mandela Barnes hobnobs in Bay Area with liberal prosecutor Chesa Boudin, state lawmaker who wants to abolish ICE

  • September 30, 2021

A Wisconsin Democratic Senate frontrunner held a San Francisco fundraiser with the son of left-wing terrorists and a California state lawmaker who wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Mandela Barnes traveled to the Bay Area on Tuesday to hobnob with San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin and California state senator Scott Wiener, a photo shared by California Democratic Party vice chair David Campos shows. Boudin—the son of two Weather Underground terrorists who has ended cash bail and repeatedly declined to prosecute serial offenders—faces a recall effort sparked by a murder surge in his city. Wiener, meanwhile, has called for the abolition of ICE, because it is a "force of oppression" that makes "communities less safe." Wisconsin Republicans have pointed to the clip to accuse Barnes of caring "more about appeasing the far left and violent criminals than standing up for public safety."...............Barnes did not return a request for comment.

In addition to Wiener's efforts to abolish ICE, the Democrat in 2016 called for "[California] & other states to become sanctuary states." Boudin also campaigned on his intention to hold "zero cooperation with ICE" and prosecute ICE agents. In 2019, he bragged he "helped pioneer San Francisco's sanctuary city policy." ............

Boudin in 2020 lobbied disgraced former New York governor Andrew Cuomo (D.) to grant clemency to his father, David Gilbert, who faced a 75-year sentence for second-degree murder over his role in a 1981 Brinks truck robbery, which left two police officers and a security guard dead. Boudin's mother, Kathy Boudin, also participated in the deadly heist. Cuomo granted Gilbert clemency before resigning from office in August.

Barnes became lieutenant governor of Wisconsin in 2019 after serving as a state legislator for four years. While a September poll released by Barnes's campaign shows him in a tie with Johnson, the Republican has not yet decided to run for reelection............To Read More....

My Take - If this lunatic is the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin, I couldn't help but wonder whose the Governor.   Tony Evers, and he's as big a lunatic as this Barnes, which of course brings us to the next obvious question. What in the world is wrong with the minds of the people of Wisconsin?




Saturday, August 15, 2020

Why Did Biden Pick Kamala? Follow the Money

How much did it cost to buy Biden's VP Spot? About $3.5 million.

That's how much Senator Kamala Harris' virtual fundraiser for Biden brought in back in June.

That not only beat Hillary’s total, but swamped every other Democrat fundraiser for Biden, except the Obama one, which brought in over $6 million for his old incontinent flunky, and Warren, who brought in more money in total, but had the misfortune of being a white woman.

The virtual fundraisers were the real beauty contest for the money hungry Bidens. And Kamala Harris won them in a swimsuit of money long before the official announcement was even made.

Susan Rice could hardly compete with a paltry $24,000 donation to Biden.


"She’s been a fighter and a principled leader and I know because I’ve seen her up close, and I’ve seen her in the trenches," Biden gushed about the California politician.

The trenches that Biden had in mind weren’t in the fields of France, but at high-end fundraisers.

Another one of Kamala’s virtual fundraisers for Biden in July brought in another million.

It’s been estimated that Kamala raised a total of $5 million for Biden.

What was Kamala's secret? She's plugged into a network of wealthy donors who got her to the Senate. And then poured over $40 million into her failed presidential campaign.

The fundraisers showed Biden what Kamala could bring to the party. And it wasn’t just money.

A Kamala fundraiser for Biden featured Diplo, DJ D-Nice, Jermaine Dupri and DJ Cassidy. It probably doesn't hurt that Kamala's husband is an entertainment industry lawyer.

It wasn’t just Willie Brown who got Kamala to the top. It was money.

Kamala had built her political career on tapping into big money in San Francisco and then statewide. She routinely outspent her opponents in her political campaigns. In 2016, she bought the Senate race by raising over $15 million and outspending her opponent almost 4 to 1.

More than half of her presidential campaign was funded by $23 million in large contributions.

That, and not small donors, is what Biden has been running on. After Kamala Harris dropped out, the Biden campaign "aggressively" pursued her donors. Now he doesn't need to. After the DNC’s clown car primary with its obsession with small donors, the jackass party is jettisoning the pretense that it cares about anything other than big donors and their giant wads of cash.

As CNBC notes, "her addition to the ticket could help push the Biden campaign over the top in the cash race with Trump."

Michael Kempner, a top Democrat donor and the head of one of the country’s biggest PR firms, gushed, "she has a strong and active fundraising organization. She will be an important and immediate addition to the Biden fundraising effort. She is a fundraising star.”

It’s about the money. It was always about the money.

Did anyone seriously think that Biden would pick Stacey Abrams, Rep. Karen Bass, or Susan Rice, when he can marry Mrs. Moneybags for her money and the donors that come with it?

Once Team Biden decided that they had to have a black woman in the second spot, there was only one that came with sacks of money. And there was only one who could tap into the massive reserves of California cash that has been used to transform elections nationwide.

Biden vowed to pick a black woman to represent the black community, but he cynically ended up picking a politician with few ties to the black community, but lots of ties to big white money.

Wall Street executives are already cheering the pick. So is Hollywood.

And the black community got played.

But what else is new?

The Democrats picked the daughter of an Indian doctor who was raised in Montreal and claims that her favorite band is “Salt and Pepper” as the new big step forward for African-Americans. They disregarded the almost universal opposition to Kamala’s candidacy by the Congressional Black Caucus, and by virtually every black activist within their own party, because of the money.

The Biden campaign told black Democrats that Kamala’s money matters more than they do.

And black Democrats will be expected to back Kamala up as she spends the entire campaign accusing President Trump and Republicans of racism and sexism for opposing her. These accusations will ring hollow among black voters, just as they did when Kamala was lobbing them at Biden. They fell flat when Kamala tried to keep her campaign going by accusing the entire primary field and the Democrat electorate of racism and sexism for not picking her.

Biden supposedly picked Kamala to appeal to black voters, but he beat her among black voters.

Toward the end of her campaign, Kamala was only polling at 4% among black voters while 20% had an unfavorable view of her.

But the Biden-Harris campaign is ready to reboot the racism and sexism charge all over again as it deploys the liar who accused him of racism to falsely smear President Trump as a racist.

The question that President Trump ought to ask is was Kamala lying then or is she lying now?

Before the official announcement, the Biden campaign was already officially coordinating with the abortion groups, that have killed countless black babies, and Emily's List, to smear Republicans and the Trump campaign as sexist and racist for criticising Kamala Harris.

Meanwhile, when Biden's VP search committee asked her about accusing the man at the top of racism, she allegedly, "laughed and said, ‘that’s politics.’"

That’s the level of contempt that Senator Kamala Harris has for the serious charge of racism. All those stories about her plight in “segregated” Berkeley while growing up as the daughter of wealthy upper class parents were a cynical political joke. And black people didn’t buy into it.

The question is whether black voters will buy into it when they’re aimed at Republicans. And whether they’ll let themselves be used as fronts for more false exploitation of racism by Kamala

Joe Biden showed that he cares more about white donors than black voters. And that what he really cares about isn’t race, even as he’s trying to use Kamala’s assumed racial identity to play on white guilt and racial idealism, but money. That’s all the Biden family has ever cared about.

And if this is how Biden is treating the black community before the election when he actually needs their votes, imagine how he’ll treat them afterward when he doesn’t need them anymore.

Friday, October 11, 2019

Your Donations to ACSH Will Be Doubled!

Request From the American Council on Science and Health

Many years ago, a friend asked: "Why do you do what you do?" The reply was simple: "To make a difference." That's why Elizabeth Whelan, Norman Borlaug and Frederick Stare founded ACSH 41 years ago. The American public was getting bad information. Those three set out to change that.

And of late, we've been making quite a difference. Dr. Josh Bloom got the U.S. Surgeon General to walk-back an erroneous statement, equating Tylenol and IV-morphine. Dr. Alex Berezow worked with an ACSH science advisor, who's an AMA board member, to stop the AMA from declaring glyphosate unsafe.

But we can't do this important work without funding.

We have to pay rent and to keep the lights on. You can help by donating today. And if you give this week your gift will have twice the impact. As you probably know, an ACSH donor has pledged to DOUBLE our online gifts, and we're 76 percent of the way to our goal. But we need to hit that worthy target within the next two weeks. So please give: JUST CLICK HERE

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Your Donations to ACSH Will Be Doubled!

Request From the American Council on Science and Health

Many years ago, a friend asked: "Why do you do what you do?" The reply was simple: "To make a difference." That's why Elizabeth Whelan, Norman Borlaug and Frederick Stare founded ACSH 41 years ago. The American public was getting bad information. Those three set out to change that.

And of late, we've been making quite a difference. Dr. Josh Bloom got the U.S. Surgeon General to walk-back an erroneous statement, equating Tylenol and IV-morphine. Dr. Alex Berezow worked with an ACSH science advisor, who's an AMA board member, to stop the AMA from declaring glyphosate unsafe.

But we can't do this important work without funding.

We have to pay rent and to keep the lights on. You can help by donating today. And if you give this week your gift will have twice the impact. As you probably know, an ACSH donor has pledged to DOUBLE our online gifts, and we're 76 percent of the way to our goal. But we need to hit that worthy target within the next two weeks. So please give: JUST CLICK HERE

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Dem Dot Coms vs. Trump's Soldiers and Steelworkers

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 3 Comments Wednesday, July 17, 2019 @ Sultan Knish Blog
Politics has its style and its substance. Style requires the 2020 candidates to stump in New Hampshire diners and eat corn dogs at Iowa fairs. These stylistic rites of passage in American politics are on the verge of irrelevance as the kingmakers in California push up their primary and as the effort to eliminate the electoral college gains traction among the 2020 Democrats and, more importantly, their donors.

Forget the New Hampshire diners and Iowa corn dogs, the truth can be found if you follow the money.

The 2020 race is all about touting the democracy of small donors with a 130,000 donor threshold for the third Democrat debate. But certain zip codes keep coming up for the top Democrat candidates. The 100XX zip codes of Manhattan, the 90XXX zip codes of Los Angeles, the 94XXX zip codes of San Francisco, the 98XXX zip codes of Seattle, the 20XXX zip codes of D.C. and the 02XXX zip codes of Boston.

These are the core zip codes of the Democrat donor base. They are the pattern that recur in the campaign contributions lists of the top Democrats. And they explain the politics of the 2020 race.

Providing free health care for illegal aliens at taxpayer expense may not be very popular nationwide, but is commonplace in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Boston. Gun control is a loser nationwide, but a sure thing in the big blue cities. Even proposals to take away private health plans, allow rapists and terrorists to vote from prison, and open the border pick up more support there.

The 2020 Democrats aren’t speaking to Americans as a whole. Instead they’re addressing wealthy donors from 6 major cities, and some of their satellite areas, whose money they need to be able to buy teams, ads and consultants to help them win in places like New Hampshire and Iowa.

New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles show up in the top 5 donor cities for most of the top 2020 candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg. Boston shows up in the top 10, not only for Bernie and Warren, but for Kamala and Buttigieg. Seattle appears in the top 10 for Bernie, Warren, and Buttigieg. Washington D.C. features in the top 10 for Bernie, Booker, Warren, Kamala, and Buttigieg. And the rest of America doesn’t really matter.

Not if you’re a Democrat.

The democracy of small donors is illusory not only by zip code, but by industry. Google isn’t the largest company in America, but, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, its employees show up on the top company contributor lists for Kamala, Sanders, Buttigieg, and, Warren. Despite Warren’s supposed threat to break up big dot coms and Sanders’ talk of going after big companies, Google employees were the top backers of both candidates.

What do they know that we don’t?

Alphabet, Google’s parent company, does employ a lot people, but its number of employees is a fraction of those employed by Home Depot, Kroger or Wal-Mart. What Google does have is an enormous concentration of wealth and power through its monopolistic control over search advertising. That power also gives its radical employees a disproportionate ability to shape the 2020 Democrat field.

Despite Warren’s supposed threats to break up big tech, their employees are some of her biggest backers. Besides Google, Microsoft, Apple and Yelp employees are some of her major backers.

Again, what do the millionaire employees of big tech know about Warren’s plans that we don’t?

Microsoft employees show up on the donor leaderboards for Bernie, Kamala, Warren, and, Buttigieg. Amazon employees are a major donor group for Bernie and Buttigieg. Pinterest, which recently made headlines for the dot com’s aggressive censorship of pro-life views, appears on Buttigieg’s donor board. Apple employees are some of the major donors to Bernie, Warren, and Kamala.

There’s no question that big tech cash is helping shape the 2020 Democrat field.

But it’s not just big tech.

Some of the biggest financial players in shaping the 2020 field are government institutions.

After Google, University of California employees are the biggest donors to both Bernie and Warren. They also show up, somewhat less surprisingly, on the donor leaderboards for Kamala Harris and Buttigieg. The prominence of California college employees on donor lists for candidates from the other side of the country shows the sheer financial wealth of taxpayer funded institutions in California.

Aside from UC, employees of Berkeley, the city, show up as one of Bernie’s major donor groups. Employees of the State of California are a major donor group to Kamala Harris, a former state official.

New York City employees are a major donor group for Bernie Sanders.

The donor list roundups show the power of alumni networking with Warren tapping into a large donor base at Harvard and Buttigieg at Notre Dame. Harvard had positioned Warren for a profile in national politics and Notre Dame had made Buttigieg a viable candidate in a city where hardly anyone seems to even bother voting. And even Cory Booker managed to tap into his old Stanford connections

University of Michigan and University of Massachusetts employees are some of Warren’s most prevalent institutional donors. University of Illinois, Michigan, and Massachusetts employees fuel Bernie. As do Stanford and Columbia University employees.

Beyond the regional geography, there is a political and industrial geography shaping the 2020 field with New York City and Berkeley employees funding the candidacy of a Vermont socialist and the employees of public and private universities (but either way heavily subsidized by taxpayers) across the country funding the rise of a Massachusetts socialist with an academic background.

By contrast, Trump is the only 2020 candidate whose top 5 donor groups don’t contain a single big data firm, but do contain employees of the United States Army and the Department of Defense. He’s also the only candidate whose top donor groups contain multiple branches of the military, the Army, Navy, and Air Force (Space Force still pending), but not a single college or FAANG tech monstrosity.

In contrast to the 2020 Dems, there isn’t a single law firm, but there are several manufacturing firms. Meanwhile not a single of the top 2020 Dems appears to have a manufacturing donor base.

The sharp contrast between Googlers and steelworkers, between professors and soldiers, draws a truer picture of the clash of cultures between the Democrats and Republicans, lefties and righties in America.

Bernie Sanders claimed that his campaign was grass roots because his average donation was $27. Bernie, a 1 percenter socialist who claims to advocate for the poor from one of his three homes, was under the impression that $27 was what poor people could donate to a political campaign.

Then President Trump raised $54 million. His average donation was four bucks.

The parts of the country are also more diverse with Milwaukee, San Antonio, Greensboro, Dallas, and Houston appearing on the list of Trump donor bases.

The 2020 election will come down to the question of whether six influential blue cities will be able to buy the election and dictate their politics to the country, whether the big tech firms and professors will be able to drown out the sailors and steelworkers, or whether the rest of the nation will be heard.

The dot coms and academics of San Francisco and Boston, the financial firms of New York and the lobbyists of Washington D.C. will pick the Democrat nominee. But will they pick the president?

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Big Green

By John Ray @ Greenie Watch

Half a trillion dollars!  Does that seem enough? That's what "Green" donors have spent since 2010 on pushing their invariably destructive causes.  You wouldn't think there would be so much money sloshing around among American charitable sources but there is.  It has been used to fund advertising and to "buy" activists, journalists and politicians. Substantial contributions to a politician's election campaign tend to be very warmly received by the politician.

So there is a vast mechanism trying to influence American public policy towards self-destruction. Freud's warning about "Thanatos", the death instinct that is in us all to varying degrees, does spring to mind. Global Warming is a lot of hokum so they need to be spending all that money to drown out those of us who simply mention the climate facts.

So how do we know about all that spending?  It's in a vast new academic journal article by Nisbet that goes through all the "philanthropic" spending line by line. It's a very thorough and authoritative article.

It is way too long for most people to read so I have just reproduced below the beginning and the end of it.  Those excerpts tell you plenty, however. I have just done a rough download into text from a PDF so the formatting and word-separation is pretty scrappy but that's all I had time for.

If you are a masochist you can go back to the original and read the whole thing HERE.


Thursday, April 27, 2017

Big Labor Robs Members to Support Democrats

Business Review Board · Apr. 18, 2017    



 If you’re wondering why millions of workers are abandoning the idea of unionization, this statistic provides a clear answer: At least $1.7 billion — three-quarters of which came straight out of workers' pockets — was used to promote 2016 political campaigns, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.

Two things stick out in the report.

1): “labor unions, which have the ability to tax employees via forced-dues, [are] the only 501(c)5 entities capable of sustaining this kind political expenditure for the past decade”; and
2): “Union officials spent $1.3 billion directly from union treasuries (filled with forced dues and fees) to spend it on politics, dwarfing George Soros' and the Koch Brothers' reported combined political spending during the same period.”

Democrats talk a lot talk about voters “making their voices heard” by “getting out the vote,” but most of this money is being siphoned from workers who don’t have a voice in how political contributions are allocated. And, needless to say, Democrats are the biggest beneficiaries. The most recent data reveals that just 14.6 million Americans (or 10.7% of the workforce) were unionized last year. This is a 9.4% reduction from 1983, when membership was 17.7 million (a participation rate of 20.1%). This might explain why, according to The Washington Free Beacon, there is a disparity between Big Labor’s political activism and the votes cast by subordinates: “Trump received votes from 43 percent of union households, while garnering two endorsements from unions representing Border Patrol agents and police officers.”

As National Right to Work Foundation’s Mark Mix put it, “This election was a case study in the disconnect between union bosses and their members, and the chasm is growing.” If unions truly believed in the idea of democracy, they’d quit forcing members to fund partisan politics.

SOURCE

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Pretend conservatives for not so clean energy

Far-left ‘charitable’ foundations give millions to ‘conservative’ groups to drive climate agenda

Paul Driessen

More and more conservatives are proclaiming the virtues of clean energy. At least that’s what some groups want you to believe. In reality, far-left “charitable” foundations have given pretend conservatives millions of dollars to advance a climate chaos, renewable energy agenda – channeling the funds through intermediary groups, to OxiClean the transactions and limit transparency and accountability.

The huge Green Profiteers Network has to be at least somewhat bipartisan to ensure continued mandates, renewable portfolio standards, production and investment tax credits, regulatory exemptions and other subsidies that have made Climate Crisis, Inc. a $1.5-trillion international business. With global financial and insurance giants allying with that crowd and determined to procure some $93 trillion (!) by 2030 to create a “de-carbonized” and “sustainable” world economy, the effort has intensified.

But now it must contend with President Donald Trump. His growing list of executive orders  and regulatory reviews is rapidly reversing eight years of Obama “Clean Power Plan,” “social cost of carbon” and other regulatory decrees; laying the foundation for reversing EPA’s absurd finding that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare; and putting the United States in a position to lead the world back from the brink of Paris pact pandemonium and wealth redistribution.

Other countries will likely follow these energy and climate actions, says Cornwall Alliance  ethicist Calvin Beisner, thereby “sparing their citizens from the crushing costs of pointless policies to mitigate global warming, by raising energy costs and prohibiting the most reliable, affordable forms of energy.” These actions are vital, because “the greatest threat to the environment is not affluence. It’s poverty.”

Radical environmental groups are nevertheless preparing to battle every Trump action in our courts, legislatures, newsrooms … and streets. Preparing to join all the prominent big-name groups is a host of like-minded, tax-exempt, pseudo-free-enterprise outfits, many operating under the umbrella of the Conservative Energy Network. This 2016 creation includes Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, an environmentalist Christian Coalition of America, Citizens for Responsible Energy Reform – and Conservatives for Clean Energy (CCE), launched in 2014 as an “educational” and “charity” organization.

They all advocate the asserted need to “fundamentally transform” energy and economic systems, and switch from fossil fuels to “clean, renewable” energy, to save our civilization and planet from “dangerous manmade global warming, climate change and extreme weather.” The other thing they seem to have in common is funding sources that enable them to be so visible and active.

Prominent among those funding sources is The Energy Foundation. It launched CCE with a $350,000 grant in 2014, gave $535,000 to the Christian Coalition in 2013 and sent $925,000 to the North Carolina Solar Energy Alliance since 2008, the  the Civitas Institute notes, citing tax filings and other sources. 

Between 2007 and 2014, Civitas points out, TEF also gave $4,476,000 to the Southern Environmental Law Center, a litigation factory that uses questionable climate and ecological claims to drive lawsuits against energy and other development projects, raising energy costs, killing jobs, and hammering the budgets, health and wellbeing of poor, minority and working class families.

As a 2014 US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report explained, a virtual who’s who of ultra-wealthy leftist foundations and their “Billionaires’ Club” of donors is the financial force behind The Energy Foundation. TEF serves as a “pass-through” hub that helps donors make it seem that grant recipients have a more diversified base of support than they actually do; shields them from transparency and accountability; and at times hides contributions from donors that could raise serious “red” flags.

One such donor is the secretive Sea Change Foundation. Set up by billionaires Nat Simons and his wife, Sea Change has been exposed by multiple investigators as a shell corporation that funnels huge sums to radical anti-fracking and anti-fossil fuel activists from Vladimir Putin pals, giant Russian oil companies and investment groups, and more reputable sources like the Gates and Walmart Foundations.

The Energy Foundation received nearly $65 million from Sea Change between 1997 and 2015 – plus tens of millions more from the Hewlett, Packard, McKnight, MacArthur, Rockefeller, Pew, Bloomberg, Tomkat (Tom Steyer) and other foundations. All together, over 120 fat-cat foundations gave a whopping $534 million to the Energy Foundation between 1997 and 2015. During the same period, The Energy Foundation gave over $1.2 billion to more than 12,000 activist and agitator groups, investigative journalist Ron Arnold discovered.

It’s a bit daunting to have this kind of money and power allied with green, urban and government elites against Blue Collar America and the fossil fuels that still supply 81% of the USA’s energy.

This is the cabal of “consumer” and “environmental” groups that “Conservatives” for “Clean” Energy has in its corner. With offices in North Carolina and Virginia, CCE is heavily involved in fossil fuel and renewable energy political activism.

It is closely allied with the NC Solar Energy Alliance, to extend government mandates, tax credits and other government assistance to a marginal electricity source that brings higher prices, lower reliability, and reduced ability of families, hospitals, schools and businesses to meet tight budgets, says Civitas.

It has also partnered with the SELC and other groups pursuing new strategies to bankrupt and close coal-fired electricity generation plants, by generating misplaced fear about coal ash impoundments. Once public anxiety rose, activists demanded that the ash be dug up and moved “somewhere else,” regardless of the cost, which could be in the billions – and regardless of the fact that detected levels of chromium-6 (and other metals) do not pose health risks and come from natural rock formations, as well as from coal.

Keeping the ash where it is, and capping it with impermeable clay, is probably the best thing to do now.

But CCE then waded in with an opinion poll, which predictably found that North Carolinians want the ash moved but don’t want to pay for the removals, and support more wind and solar power. The groups are now poised to reprise the tactic in Virginia and other states with coal-fueled power generation.

TEF itself also weighed in, funding a study which predictably concluded that US renewable energy industries would “eventually” create 74,000 new jobs “from the ashes” of coal-related companies. Even if that were true, how many jobs would climate alarmism, chemical fear-mongering and costly renewable energy destroy in other sectors of our economy? Perhaps 740,000 or even 7,400,000?

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan alone could have imposed $1 trillion in lost output, 125,000 lost jobs and double-digit increases in electricity prices, the Wall Street Journal noted. The combined impact of all Obama Era climate and renewable energy programs would have cost the American economy  $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040, Senator John Barrasso stated, referring to a National Economic Research Associates study.

To top it off, “clean” energy is not clean, renewable or sustainable. It requires perpetual subsidies, taken from taxpayers and consumers, and given to politically connected crony corporatists. It needs vast land acreage – for wind turbines, solar panels, long transmission lines … and backup fossil fuel generating plants. And all those facilities require enormous amounts of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals, fiberglass, fossil fuels and other non-renewable raw materials dug out of the ground, often in faraway lands that have few environmental, health or child labor standards.

Just imagine the tremendous good all those billions of dollars from all those “progressive” billionaires could do if – instead of lining the coffers of radical anti-energy agitator groups – they were devoted to actually helping poor families in the United States, other industrialized nations, and especially the most impoverished, energy-deprived, disease-ridden, malnourished countries on Earth?

That would be real, long overdue social and environmental justice. If wishes were horses ….

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Michelle Obama And Chef Tom Colicchio Form A Misguided Partnership

By Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier February 22, 2017

Just when many of us hoped that we would soon be seeing the last of the Obamas, it appears that Michelle Obama will still be involved in what passes for public service in progressives' parallel universe. She has decided to partner with the far left-wing Food Policy Action Education Fund, a sister organization of the radical Food Policy Action.

In an advertisement video released in early January, Mrs. Obama intones, "What a wonderful world it would be if all the children had the nutrition they need." That is rich, given that at every turn her husband's administration obstructed new, innovative technologies that could have offered cheaper, safer, higher-quality products.

The three-year campaign, dubbed "A Place at the Table," is backed by $300 million in donated media, including TV, digital and print. It is a kind of sequel to the film documentary of the same name that chef and FPA co-founder Tom Colicchio helped produce (and that was co-directed by his wife). The nationwide campaign will be managed by another member of the left-wing, pro-nanny-state All-Star Team, Willy Ritch, former communications director for Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a leading demagogue in the fight to politicize food........To Read More....

Friday, October 28, 2016

Scientists Caught Scamming Taxpayers Out of $11 MILLION!

By Pamela Adams

The Daily Mail has just discovered an outrageous $11 million taxpayer theft. UK taxpayers were scammed out of millions of dollars for work scientists never did. They were then told these studies confirmed the horrors of climate change. In addition, taxpayers were asked for even more funds to continue the hustle.

Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) stole taxpayer money to fund their climate change agenda,  According to Daily Mail, the CCCEP made bids for more funds even though they claimed credit for rivals’ work. Not only were these papers paid for by other institutions, some were actually published before the center even existed.

The Daily Mail’s investigation revealed:.........The CCCEP is jointly positioned at the University of Leeds and the London School of Economics. This hoax should be no surprise as the London School of Economics is a famous Fabian Socialist school whose alumni include George Soros. Fabian Socialism works to bring about a peaceful revolution to democratic socialism through gradual reform efforts. America’s most famous Fabian Socialist is George Bernard Shaw but here in the United States, we call them progressives. In fact, we have one in the White House right now. Fabian Socialists have been working for over 40 years to bring about a One World Order government. Climate Change has been one of their most ardent arguments to get us there.......To Read More.....

Thursday, October 18, 2012

The New Leviathan’s Suffocating Grasp

By William A. Schambra October 16, 2012
The following article was originally published in Philanthropy magazine. 
 “Read this and be afraid,”  ......The New Leviathan, a book just published by prominent conservative writer David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin. This new leviathan, the authors note, is a sprawling, intimidating “network of billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations and advocacy think tanks that work in concert with government unions and grassroots radical groups to make up the organizational core of the political left.”…..As Horowitz and Laksin point out, the field is in fact dominated by a massive collection of liberal foundations, deploying their resources to cultivate skepticism about the justice of America’s economic and political institutions, aiming to bring ever broader swaths of our public life under government supervision and control….. On environmental questions, the ideological imbalance is even more pronounced…..the authors list no fewer than 552 groups promoting greater government control over the environment with annual revenue of $3.56 billion, compared to a mere 32 groups emphasizing private property and free-market solutions to environmental problems bringing in $96 million per year—an imbalance of over 37 to 1 in favor of the left. In both of these areas, the left’s resource advantage is compounded many times over when government funding is added to the mix, which flows disproportionately to progressive groups even under conservative presidential administrations.  To Read More…….

The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future
by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
Random House, 2012
320 pp., $27