In his opinion contribution piece to Politico titled “Why Does the Right Hate Soros?”, the founder and CEO of Tides Foundation pondered aloud the imaginary reasons he’s fabricated in his mind for the animosity toward the Hungarian born billionaire.

His conclusion? Because we hate immigrants.

This is the typical left. When you don’t get the response you want, inject a new element of manufactured hate into the mix – when you can’t make it about race, make it about immigration. Drummond Pike even decided to step up the rhetoric, implying that George Soros is in danger because of right-wing media outlets and bloggers. But the sad truth behind this piece, behind all of these public letters, boycotts and petitions is that they are all coordinated, and they are all aimed at turning the public opinion against those who do not share the ideals of the leftist agenda.

Some highlights from Pike’s opinion piece:

…I started thinking about Soros some more. Why has he become the object of such anger?

…He is certainly not the only U.S. immigrant to have accumulated a staggering fortune. Nor is he the only wealthy person to create a philanthropy focused on protecting human rights and improving the lot of marginalized communities.

His interest in contributing to politics can’t quite explain it either. There are hundreds of Americans who give in similar or greater amounts to candidates and one or another of the parties. Warren Buffett and the “Google boys” fly in private planes. Bill Gates has created a bigger philanthropy. Vinod Khosla is both an immigrant and, like Soros, an enormously successful capitalist. Oprah Winfrey has built a media empire and is openly supportive of President Barack Obama. So, what is it about Soros?

I don’t know. It might be that he speaks with a pronounced Hungarian accent.

A Hungarian accent? Let me assure Mr. Drummond that the right’s issues with George Soros have nothing to do with “his Hungarian accent.” Most in America are well aware that Soros is a naturalized American citizen, and view him no differently than any other American. Disagreeing with the policies on which Soros spends millions and millions of his capitalist dollars does not make a person anti-immigrant. And as someone whose family history is immersed in immigration, some of it not at all unlike Mr. Soros’s, let me add that I personally take offense to such an absurd insinuation.

Then, Drummond Pike further alienates the right and issues a directive:

But Soros is somehow viewed as the avatar of evil by intolerant right-wing extremists.

It is about time to call out this baseless criticism for what it is: bullying in its worst form, using an individual for political gain…

Intolerant right-wing extremists? So, citizens who question the influence that one single man has on our political system should be called out by the masses as extremist bullies? This seems to me like an attempt to squelch free speech.

…But I’m scared for Soros. He is lambasted by the likes of Beck more than anyone. As the would-be “assassin” recently indicated, Beck says he doesn’t advocate violence — but Williams is probably not the only unbalanced soul out there who wants to “start the revolution” with an act of violence.

…All of us, including Beck, need to take more responsibility for how we speak of others. Especially about those with whom we disagree….

…Otherwise, when bad things happen, we share the responsibility.

Well, some of that’s true. There are thousands of unbalanced souls out there who want to start a revolution with an act of violence. They’re called leftists. Or progressives. One actually worked in the White House until conventional-minded people pressured him out of there. Others participate in rallies promoting communist revolution, like those here and here. Others advocate “killing some crackers and their babies.” If none of those are enough, feel free to read my Twitter stream. I’m sure there are still some rape threats in there.

So, why does the right dislike Soros? Simply put, we disagree with his views on policy, and with his tactics.

For one, Soros repeatedly insists America is a democracy. It is not. America is a Republic. There is a difference. In part, that’s where the Open Society concept parts ways with its attractive Libertarian elements. As Thomas Jefferson explained, “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” A Republic, by design of our founders, follows the rule of law, which protects us from the prospect of mob rule. Soros seems to pine for the latter. He also has a way of influencing the manipulation of the truth until he creates his own mob rule.

Take for instance this video, in which Soros declares our country a democracy (again, it’s a Republic) – while comparing a sitting president to the Nazi regime for saying “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Which brings me to the second point. Soros frequently manipulates the words of others in order to manufacture conflict that works to his benefit. The quote from the same video above that Soros famously credits for “turning on his alarm bells”? He manipulates its context every time, portraying Bush as having said it as a threat to US citizens. That’s a lie. Here is the actual context:

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Meanwhile, I haven’t heard Soros or any of his lackies once denounce the current President for *actually* calling his critics enemies.

Thirdly, the right dislikes Soros for acting like a bully and a hypocrite. Most wouldn’t deny that some of Soros’s money goes toward good causes, perhaps with good intentions. But it would also be naïve to ignore the fact that the man also uses his money and stature to negatively influence others. There has always been great speculation about how much philanthropic and governmental manipulation, rather than pure capitalism, might have been involved with his investments related to breaking the Bank of England, the Russian financial crisis, Malaysia’s currency crisis, and the decline of the Euro. Meanwhile, Soros’ appeal with the European Court of Human Rights for his insider trading conviction in France remains to conclude.

While he prides himself on fighting to protect open society, free speech, and democratic discourse, Soros spends inordinate amounts of money on lackies who’ll spread mistruths about those with whom he disagrees. His ardent supporters/beneficiaries serve as a silencing mechanism on his behalf, shielding him from the general public challenging his actions, lest they be ostracized and shunned. He invests in an entire portfolio of progressive media that in turn try to intimidate American citizens on the right, for example, for falsely painting the right as racist, extremist, and dangerous.

And if you dare call Soros out on his methods, he will come after you for stating the truth. He will use the very methods of which he accuses others of using to do so. I’m reminded of this in an interview that Neil Cavuto conducted with Soros in 2006, in which the usually gentlemanly man turned ornery and fiery. (Starting at approximately 4:46.)

Of course I was referring to Bill O’Reilly. I really consider him disreputable. I think he uses methods that I find unacceptable…

When I see that the principles of Open Society are undermined by people like Bill O’Reilly, with his methods, then I feel that I’ve got to stand up. So, the more he insults me, the more I will stand up against it, because he is using a remarkable trick you know, he comes straight out of George Orwell – who wrote the book 1984 – Newspeak, you say the opposite of what you mean…

It’s as though he’s broken from reality. The Orwellian comparison is part of the same theory that Soros has shared over and over and over again with hundreds at a time in public forums, and on video – that there’s a right-wing conspiracy behaving just like the enemies of Orwell’s 1984. His hypocrisy is stunning. The man intentionally creates the same derision he claims to want to protect America against. In hindsight, that interview reveals so much about the public feud going on today between Soros and right-leaning media. It’s a feud that has intensified even more and has expanded to an entire class of American citizens who simply do not see eye to eye with the very powerful billionaire.

Given what those of us on the right deal with on a daily basis, many of us know what it’s like to be the target of hate. We know what it’s like to be stereotyped and silenced. We’ve been under attack for years, every single day, for nothing more than believing in a constitutionally limited government, one that would ultimately lift people out of poverty rather than keep them in it. We’ve been the target of vicious lies, manufactured to sway the public’s opinion of us, in order to create a hostile environment to be used for political gain.

I agree, Mr. Pike. We do need to take more responsibility for how we speak of others. Unfortunately, there seems to be a disconnect on the left between the words “hate” and the word “truth.” Contrary to popular belief, the two don’t mean the same thing.

It is upsetting that Tides was targeted by a clearly unbalanced individual, whose actions were deplorable and inexcusable. And certainly no one wants to see such an action occur again. But Byron Williams’ actions were his, and his alone.

Taking advantage of the incident unfairly to try and silence opponents of the left’s political views is equally deplorable. It’s akin to the shameless tactics of Media Matters. Titling a piece, “Why Does the Right Hate George Soros?” is in itself irresponsible. Hate is an awfully strong word to tie around the necks of an entire category of people. It’s also not constructive to publicly refer to that group of people as “right wing extremists” in an already hyper-charged political environment. Nor is it very responsible to imply that the right “hates” Soros because he is an immigrant.

Such charged rhetoric is designed to foment anger on the left and direct it at the right. That’s simply un-American. While we on the right try to fight for our free speech and to have the truth be told, we have no 527 groups behind us. We have no billionaires. But we have one another. We won’t be silenced.

So, with all due respect to Mr. Pike, that is why the right does not like George Soros. (Notice, I won’t use the word “hate.”)

Shortly after the Byron Williams incident first occurred, Drummond Pike had no interest in pointing fingers or engaging in a war of words, he told San Francisco Weekly:

“There really isn’t much you can do when people make these kinds of statements about you. I don’t want to inflame Mr. Beck any more than he is already inflamed. I’m very concerned about the safety of my employees,” says Pike. “I’ve hired security personnel, had security reviews of our building, and alerted the U.S. Park Police. I have no interest of accusing him of anything. I just invite him to learn more about what we really do.”

Interesting… why the sudden change in tone? Seems to me there may be some media bullies lurking in our midst, trying to plow down the 1st amendment. We must be in their way. That’s OK. In Soros’s own words, “the more they insult us, the more we will stand up against it.”

I suppose maybe that’s why Soros hates the Right.

Democrats have made an art form of mis-speak, consistently showing only a passing familiarity with good, old Merriam-Webster.  Think Kafka and Orwell, where words are elastic, and plain-speaking is all but abandoned.

Understanding what President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are saying is difficult; for, though the language may seem to be English, in reality, they speak a different language, the language of the Democrats in DC.  To understand exactly what they are saying, Americans need an “English –Democratic Party Dictionary.   Here is a sampler of some of the most important words and phrases that cause confusion:

• INVESTMENT: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi frequently talk about the need for “investments”. For example, ” President Obama recently identified a need to invest in American infrastructure (and education)  What Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi really seem to mean when they talk about “investments” is that government needs to spend more.  Democrats  have learned from extensive polling that disguising calls for more government spending, and even greater national debt, are more palatable (to those that have not yet figured out the scam) if,  they talk about spending as  “investments”.  As most Americans know, making an investment  implies a return worthy of the risk.  Investors always want their money back and a profit to boot.  Fat chance of that!  According to the Democrat-version, “investments” are just spending by another name.  There will never be a return, and taxpayers putting their money are risk will never get their funds back, nor is there any chance of a decent return.

• WORKING MAN: A favorite chestnut of Democrats, which really means Union Worker.   Lots of Democrats talk about being the Party of “the working man”, but what they are really saying is that we need to support Unions and Organized Labor.  Other Americans, that actually work very hard in a thousand different industries,  and especially entrepreneurs, and small  business owners, are not ever considered to be “working men or women”.  Sure they might work 90+ hours a week, to build their business, but that matters not at all.   Democrats support, and honor, only the unionized employee as a “working man or woman.   All other, hard working, Americans are an afterthought, and none merit much attention beyond how much more their taxes should be raised.

• ENTITLEMENTS v. RIGHTS: When Democrats speak of “rights” most people mistakenly assume that they are talking about constitutional rights, that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, But, that is a big mistake, for Democrats, and Progressives, have so misused and bastardized the “rights” to portray their expansive vision of government ,and the many false promises of something for nothing.  For example, “it’s my right to have cheap healthcare.”  Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is healthcare identified as a “right“, nor is the concept even discussed.  Progressives also point out that, “it’s every American’s right to have a decent standard of living.”  Wrong again.  What Americans have been promised in our Constitution  is an equal  opportunity to pursue their own dreams and pursue happiness free of excessive government control .   Similarly, it is important to remember that Entitlement programs are not “rights” either.

• JOB CREATION: Democrats in government  talk a lot about job creation and the urgent need for government to create more jobs. But, government does not create any jobs in the private sector, and the only jobs it does create are government jobs, that can only be funded and supported by additional taxes on those that do create jobs.

• SHOVEL READY: Remember this one?  “Shovel Ready” projects were supposed to result in the immediate launch of any number of new construction projects, creating jobs across the country.  But that was a myth; very few “shovel ready” projects ever existed.  Instead, the vast majority of new construction projects were tied up in nightmarish, regulatory processes;  scoring rules, prospectuses, approvals, assessments, FONSIs (Finding of No Significant Impact) and Permitting, are just a few of the obstacles that must be overcome before a project is “shovel ready.” Had President Obama really wanted to push infrastructure projects, he could have eliminated or reduced any or all of the many different  bureaucratic hurdles that a building project must navigate.  Instead, the President merely called for more money to be placed into the maw of a process that grinds too slowly and at great expense to taxpayers. There are all sorts of infrastructure projects that could be made “Shovel Ready”, but that would require  dedicated leadership willing, and able, to curtail excessive bureaucratic reviews and focus more on the actual building of new infrastructure, versus a timid, rote adherence to an unsuccessful process that does not serve the nation.

• CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Critical infrastructure  should be restricted to a very narrow definition– roads, bridges and buildings essential to continued or increased commerce of the nation.  But Dems in Congress have, in the Stimulus, expanded the definition to include water parks and studies of the Harvest Marsh Mouse.  According to this view, building new tennis courts, water parks, and stadium parking lots, (especially if they are targeted into their own districts) are all now labeled as “critical infrastructure”.  What Dems in Congress cannot, and will not, ever do is to actually prioritize the nation’s needs, and have the courage and leadership to decide which projects would provide the greatest benefit to the nation as a whole.  Instead, a “critical infrastructure” is defined as any building project, or any spending plan, that will bring federal funds to their home districts.

• SPENDING CUTS / CUT TO THE BONE: Washington is always talking about “cutting to the bone”, but that is a fiction.  There is so much blubber in the budget that it’s been many a decade since Americans saw the “bones.”  When Dems use the term SPENDING Cuts — as in “we must reduce federal spending”, what is really meant is: let’s cut the amount of the increase to the budget line item.  Memo to Congress:  cutting an increase is not a budget cut.

Our country used to be one where a man, or woman, was bound by their word, and their word was their bond in  public and private transactions.  We are so long gone past that because, now, in the 111th Congress, words only means whatever the speaker wants them to mean.  Before we can solve a problem, we need to acknowledge the problem openly and with candor.  When we lose our language, we lose the power to change by civil discourse.  And, that bodes ill for all Americans.

After waiting a full 24-hours to react to yesterday’s release of the 24-page police report of the Kenneth Gladney incident of August 6^th (24-hours?  I thought you guys were supposed to “post(s) rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media”) they give us this beautiful example of leftist equivocation:

The funny part is that the crew at BigGovernment has such a shaky grasp of how journalism works that they act like posting an everyday police report proves that all crazy their [sic] allegations are true.

OK…  but over here behind THIS curtain at Media Matters, they say:

The filing of the police report by ACORN — Russell can be seen holding a copy of it in O’Keefe’s video — indicates the Philadelphia ACORN office had no intention of helping O’Keefe and Giles conduct any illegal activities, and ACORN said the police report “proves our clear understanding of this scam that was being portrayed.”

So, in the case of a single page, six line police report filed by a third party who did not witness any occurrence at the ACORN offices, just the fact that the report was filed “indicates the Philadelphia ACORN office had no intention of helping O’Keefe and Giles conduct any illegal activities” even though the video proves otherwise (more questions on that police report here, which, by the way, is NOT a “Police Report” it is a “Complaint or Incident Report” that any citizen can ask the police to write up).

Meanwhile, in the case of a 24-page report full of eye-witness testimony with accompanying arrests… that’s just Big Government practicing lousy journalism!

Media Matters then goes on further to dismiss the arrests made because they were “merely” booked for “3rd Degree Assault”:

That’s right, third degree assault. But how could Gladney have been savagely beaten, as many right-wing bloggers originally claim, if the men responsible that night were only tagged with third degree assault, arguably the lightest possible charge for the offense?

Let me guess:  Some assaults are more equal than others.