Whenever the political left wants to inspire its troops, it never takes long before they reach back to the glory days of the 1960s for one of its favorite rallying cries: "By any means necessary."
Back then, the words meant grit, determination and a willingness to endeavor against difficult odds for causes such as racial equality. For today’s left – particularly environmentalists – "any means necessary" means something entirely different.
We can all think of examples of this kind of environmental ‘extremist’ – such as “tree spiking” — but there much more pervasive level in which environmental radicalism is running rampant – through the use of political action to deceive, delay, and “game the system” for their extreme ideological and political agenda.
Since I spend a lot of time following political issues in the Golden State, I can safely say that the most blatant example of this that I can see going on in California right now has been the years-long effort to have a liquefied national gas (LNG) facility off of the coast of Los Angeles County. More specifically, the Australian energy company BHP Billiton has been working hard to gain approval to construct a system to bring LNG to California. Rather than debate the merits of the issue, opponents have resorted to every scare tactic in the book. For readers of this site, perhaps this is old news – we’ve linked quite a few stories on this to our main page.
What separates these anti-LNG activists from the typical lefty extremists is their unique brand of institutional hypocrisy – and its stretching all the way from Malibu to Sacramento.
Let’s start with Malibu, the seaside community as preciously liberal as it is picturesque. On the city’s official website – the one paid for by taxpayers – much information is available, including employment opportunities and some breathtaking photos.
Also included is a front-page headline entitled "Three Important Upcoming Meetings About LNG." From there, visitors are directed to an online hearing flyer that may be the most partisan material I have ever seen on an official city taxpayer-funded website. (I’ve attached the flyer in case it somehow “disappears” from their site, which sometimes happens when a little light shines on these egregious actions at taxpayer expense).
The flyer is sponsored by the California Coastal Protection Network (more on them later) calling on readers to "Please join us at these hearings to voice your opinion against the LNG project."
What if a Malibu resident supports the LNG project? What if they are undecided? Apparently they aren’t represented by their city, despite the fact they’re paying for the website.
Do you think this would be tolerated for one minute in other less liberal areas of California (yes, there are quite a few)? The main-stream-media would have this splashed on newspapers, reported on he radio, and been the subject of television news reporting.
In searching for more information about this situation, I came across an organization called the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture, and Business (COLAB). Their Executive Director, a gentlemen by the name of Andy Caldwell, recently penned a great update about this situation, and others pick up on what he wrote (like am doing right now), his observations and research may shed a lot of light on what is really going on… He writes…
Ms. Jordan began her mission in 1990 in Orange and Los Angeles Counties with her involvement in the League for Coastal Protection and Vote the Coast, both 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations she founded or co-founded with Sara Wan.
Almost two decades later Ms. Jordan is now the director of California Coastal Protection Network, also a non-profit 501(c) (3) organization. Interestingly, Jordan is listed as the only officer of this corporation as reported to the California Attorney General’s office.
A little research shows that the League for Coastal Protection was found to have been the plaintiff in at least 11 civil lawsuits between 1984 and 2000, most of which were filed against the California Coastal Commission.
Were they doing what EDC has done so successfully – changing policy in the courts, or – to put it another way — using taxpayer subsidized dollars to sue a state agency? During part of this time, Ms. Wan (appointed in 1996 and still serving) and Mr. Nava were both Coastal Commissioners (1997-2004).
Shouldn’t Wan have been required to recuse herself when any or all of these groups and individuals in which she had or has an interest before the Commission or in any past or future discussions about these lawsuits? As a board member or officer she has a fiduciary duty to the corporation (yes, even non profits are technically corporations) that conflicts with her role as a Coastal Commissioner.
These are the kinds of questions that just seem to never get asked, let alone answered. It’s one reason why so many people lose faith in government as an institution of efficiency, let alone fundamental fairness.
Bill Whalen – a frequent contributor to this webpage, and a fellow over at the esteemed Hoover Institution, recently penned an excellent op-ed making some vital points. You should really take a moment to read it here. But for those who like to read the last pages of a mystery novel first, I will ‘lift’ the final paragraphs from Whalen’s piece below. You have to ask yourself, “Where’s the rest of the media?”
California’s energy crisis seems a distant memory now. Californians might remember where they were when the "rolling blackouts" began, but few are familiar with the dynamics of constrained interstate natural gas transportation capacities. What the energy crisis did do was unleash a shock wave that not only undermined confidence in public institutions, but rewrote state regulations on energy use and development, bankrupted the state’s largest utility, and prompted Californians to replace a recently re-elected governor with a film legend.
If there’s one thing every movie star knows, it’s the back story of the characters they portray. As for California’s immediate energy needs, time will tell if California’s Governator is especially mindful of this emerging story arc — and does what is necessary to avoid the way that Gray Davis got written out of his own script.
Of course, it isn’t by accident that Whalen references movie stars. As I have looked into this issue, a host of left-wing environmental ‘activist-actors’ (you know, the ones who swing by political rallies at the beach before retreating to their mega-million dollar Malibu beachfront enclaves) have made fighting this LNG facility their cause célèbre.
Three statewide elected officials will play key roles in determining the ultimate fate of BHP Billiton — Governor Schwarzenegger, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi and State Controller John Chiang. Of course pressure should be put on Garamendi and Chiang – they shouldn’t get a ‘free pass’ on this important issue. As for the Governor…
Going all of the way back to mid-2005, the Governor has indicated his support for the construction of the LNG facility. This would be consistent with the Governor’s steady drum-beat for alternative fuels to oil. That said, the Governor also made it clear that he opposes tax increases but now has proposed one – a big one. So supporters of this plant had better be prepared to make sure they stand with the governor and not merely leave it to him to carry the day.
This becomes even more critical as it wasn’t hard to find a lot of media coverage about all of the lefty ‘activist-actor’ colleagues of Arnold and Maria who have dedicated themselves to pressuring the governor and making this a far more difficult decision than it should be.
And yes, they have pledged to change Governor Schwarzenegger’s mind "by any means necessary."
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.