Tag Archives: Fraud

Despite Massive Fraud and Failures Obama’s Energy Department Set to Approve More “Green Energy” Loans

By Gary P Jackson

It seems like we read a new story every day about a so-called “green” energy company filing for bankruptcy, or otherwise failing to meet it’s performance goals. Few industries are so rife with corruption as the “green” sector. Why is this? Because government is involved. Corrupt politicians have teamed with unscrupulous quick buck artists to funnel local, state, and federal tax dollars directly into their bank accounts.

This is a serious criminal enterprise. So what is the Obama Department of Energy’s answer? Loan out even more of your tax dollars, of course.

From The Hill:

The Energy Department said Thursday it expects to begin tentatively approving new taxpayer-backed loans for renewable energy projects in the coming months.

The announcement comes about seven months after Solyndra, the California solar firm that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the administration in 2009, went bankrupt, setting off a firestorm in Washington.

The Department expects to begin issuing conditional commitments over the next several months after completing a rigorous internal and external review of each application,” Energy Department loan program chief David Frantz wrote to the top lawmakers on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Frantz – in the letter to committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and ranking Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) – stressed that projects receiving loan guarantees will be “subject to a robust monitoring effort to ensure that taxpayers’ investments are protected.

He defended the loan program from GOP critics, who have alleged that the administration is wasting taxpayer money by supporting risky renewable energy projects.

By any measure, the Energy Department’s loan programs have helped the United States keep pace in the fierce global race for clean energy technologies,” Frantz wrote.

Over the past three years the loan programs have invested in some of the world’s biggest, most innovative, and most ambitious clean energy projects to date, supporting a balanced portfolio of American clean energy projects that are creating tens of thousands of jobs nationwide and are expected to provide power to nearly three million U.S. households,” he said.

[ …. ]

The news that the Energy Department will again issue renewable energy loan guarantees is certain to draw the attention of House Republicans, who are investigating the loan program.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has spent more than a year probing the Solyndra loan guarantee, using the bankruptcy to raise broader questions about the Obama administration’s clean energy investments.

Committee Republicans have alleged that the department missed a series of red flags that hinted at Solyndra’s financial problems. And they’ve accused the administration of approving the loan to please Obama’s campaign donors, a claim the White House strongly denies.

Why is government loaning out money in the first place? Isn’t that what banks and venture capitalists are for?

These companies are going out of business almost as fast as the government makes these multi-million dollar loans and grants. It’s immoral and certainly criminal.

I don’t know when it will happen, but at some point, the America people must stand up and demand an end to all of this, and demand that those involved be held responsible. From the president on down, there must be accountability. Even if we have to build new prisons to hold them all.

The Obama regime, and the scam artists it’s funding are stealing America’s future right before our eyes.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Video Proof Rick Santorum is a Fraud: Stood with Arlen Specter to Protect a Woman’s “Right to Choose”

By Gary P Jackson

Here’s a little something that showed up in my inbox that is just deviating. Not only did Santorum stand with Arlen Specter as the democrat turned Republican turned democrat forcefully defended the baby killing crowd, he dutifully nodded as Specter took on Christian values in the Republican Party.

Big Government Rick Santorum’s only “selling point” is his supposed devotion to the things social Conservatives hold near and dear. Lord knows it isn’t his record as a Senator.

Santorum, who at times sounds like he’s running for Pope instead of President, lays it on thick and his supporters lap it up. And yet ….

As someone who believes that all life is sacred, I’d have a really hard time even voting for a pro-death candidate, let alone stand with him as he announces his bid for the presidency.

This from Jack Hunter:

At Senator Arlen Specter’s official presidential campaign announcement in March 1996, then-Senator Rick Santorum showed his public support and encouragement of Specter by sitting directly next to him as Specter denounced the GOP’s war on abortion.  It was at this event that Specter proclaimed his total opposition to social conservatism and declared he is in fact running to make the GOP pro-choice.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Some key points from the video. [emphasis Hunter’s]

3’46 mark: “In 1996, I intend to win the other house — the White House — with ten commitments to America… including a woman’s right to choose…

13’22 mark: “Even though we have this historic opportunity for these achievements, there are those in our party who would lead us down a different path — and squander this unique moment in our nation’s history — by using our political capital — to pursue a radical social agenda — that would end a woman’s right to choose…

13’48 mark: “When Pat Robertson says there is no constitutional doctrine of separation between Church and State, I say he is wrong…

14’31 mark: “When Ralph Reed says a pro-choice Republican isn’t qualified to be our President, I say the Republican Party will not be intimidated or blackmailed by those kinds of threats.I, and millions of other pro-choice Republicans, will not be disenfranchised and made second class citizens.

15’33 mark: “… it is not Christian, or religious, or Judeo-Christian to bring God into politics; or to advocate intolerance and promote exclusion.

15’54 mark: “I want to take abortion out of politics. I want to keep the Republican Party focused on the vital economic and foreign policy issues — and leave moral issues such as abortion to the conscience of the individual. I believe abortion is an issue to be decided by women…

16’40 mark: “I pledge to lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform…

I’m sure supporters of Santrum’s will find some way to “explain” all of this away, but how can you? How can you defend the indefensible?

Good old “Magic Bullet” Specter was and is wrong. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and the recognition that all of our rights come from Nature’s God. To think religion has no place in politics is naïve and wrongheaded. Our values are what guide us in everything we do.

Now do we want the federal government establishing an “official” religion? Of Course not! Doesn’t mean we don’t want people of good character working for us as our elected representatives.

What makes this especially damning is Rick Santorum’s holier-than-thou attitude, and his complete lack of respect for individual rights. It’s not for nothing that less than a week ago, the same Rick Santorum who sat through Arlen Specter’s nauseating speech decrying religion in the public square claims to have thrown up at Jack Kennedy’s famous speech in Houston. A speech, BTW, that was designed to ease Protestants’ fears that he [Kennedy] would be taking orders from the Vatican, rather than the American people.

Of course, Santorum has actually attacked Protestants with this despicable rant.

Kennedy talked about a “separation of church and state” but in the way Thomas Jefferson intended, not the way it’s been perverted in our life time. You see, Jefferson, following the Constitution, talked of the need of a separation, but this was one way. In other words, it was quite all right to have religion in the public square. It was quite alright for politicians to be men of God. After all, at one point religious services were once regularly held in congressional chambers. It’s the establishment of an official state religion that concerned Jefferson. After all, religious freedom is why America’s earliest settlers made that long journey from England.

Santorum, realizing he dug himself yet another hole, found himself having to walk his statement on JFK’s speech back just days later.

Further complicating the situation, here is what Rick Santorum told NPR in 2006:

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone … [that] government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. … Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone

Seriously? Every single [and actual] Conservative I know wants to be left alone. The entire idea behind the Conservative movement is that government that governs best governs least. Now governments do get involved in social issues, for sure, but anyone who has listened to Santorum knows he would like to see it get a lot more involved.

Read more here for a list of all of the Big Government programs Santrum thought all of us Conservatives needed from our benevolent nanny state government.

One could go on and on about Santorum and what some would call a flip-flop on one of the most essential issues: The right to life. But frankly I am confused. Did Santorum actually agree with Specter’s rhetoric, or did he simply set aside all of his principles to “take one for the team” as he would often do as a Senator? We all know the value Santorum places on being a “team player” don’t we.

Either way, do we want a human windsock, or someone of such low character they will readily set aside all of their principles and values for political expediency, sitting in the White House?

This fits nicely with the knowledge of the massive corruption Santorum participation in, as part of the K-Street Project, and how he fought legislation that would have saved young girls in Saipan from a life of prostitution and forced abortions.

Seems as we’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well for the American people. Santorum is a not what he claims to be and doesn’t have the character and values necessary to be president. Never had ’em, never will.

Oh …. before we go. Remember the supposed deal Santorum had with Specter to exchange his endorsement for votes on judicial nominees? Specter says it never happened.

Since both of these gentlemen have a strained relationship with the truth, and the ability to tell it, you’ll have to decide which one of these two you believe. From Breitbart News:

6 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

Perry Campaign: Everything in “Fed Up!” Was Meaningless BS

By Gary P Jackson

I have a copy of Rick Perry’s Fed Up! on my bookshelf. In the book Perry sounds like the kind of solid conservative Americans would like to have in the movement. I must say I enjoyed the book, and agreed with what was written. Thing is, it seems Perry himself does not.

One of the main themes of the book was going back to the Founder’s original intent of a decentralized government, with the states more in charge and responsible for things affecting the people. The entire book is an homage to the Tenth Amendment.

Another strong theme is, Perry wants nothing to do with Washington, or it’s politics. He also says [as he has many times] that being Governor of Texas is the “greatest job on earth.” And yet, he wants to leave that and go to the cesspool that is D.C.? The D.C. that he said in his book he wanted nothing to do with? Hmm.

Perry has also said that Tenth Amendment stuff was just BS as well, if not in words, then by his actions.

When he first got serious about running for President, and the issue of gay marriage came up, he got it right, at first. It’s a states’ rights issue. Then when pressured, he flip-flopped faster than Mitt Romney on his best day, and said we need a federal ban on gay marriage.

Same goes for abortion. That Tenth Amendment became meaningless as soon as Perry was approached. The reason Roe v Wade is bad law is because it usurped states’ rights. The federal government has no business dealing with this issue. Left alone, most states would ban, or severely limit abortion all on their own. Perry should know this, as Texas, thanks to our legislature, is doing everything it can to limit the slaughter of the innocent.

That said, you can’t have it both ways. You either believe the Tenth is the law of the land, or you don’t. You can’t say you are 100% for it, except when it’s inconvenient.

Recently Perry, who talks tough, was called out for statements he made about Social Security. Neil King Jr writes in the Wall Street Journal: [emphasis mine]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry used to be pretty frank when it came to the country’s Social Security system. In his fiery anti-Washington book, “Fed Up!“, published last fall when he had no plans to run for president, Mr. Perry called the program, which turned 76 on Monday, “a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal.

He suggested the program’s creation violated the Constitution. The program was put in place, “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,” he wrote, comparing the program to a “bad disease” that has continued to spread. Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”

But since jumping into the 2012 GOP nomination race on Saturday, Mr. Perry has tempered his Social Security views. His communications director, Ray Sullivan, said Thursday that he had “never heard” the governor suggest the program was unconstitutional. Not only that, Mr. Sullivan said, but Fed Up!” is not meant to reflect the governor’s current views on how to fix the program.

The issue bubbled up Thursday, when a gaggle of protestors confronted Mr. Perry outside a café in Portsmouth, N.H., accusing him of trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Perry didn’t respond when one of the protesters inside the café accused him of believing the Social Security system was unconstitutional.

In an interview, Mr. Sullivan acknowledged that many passages in Mr. Perry’s “Fed Up!” could dog his presidential campaign. The book, Mr. Sullivan said, “is a look back, not a path forward.It was written “as a review and critique of 50 years of federal excesses, not in any way as a 2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto,” Mr. Sullivan said.

The campaign’s disavowal of “Fed Up!” is itself very new. On Sunday evening, at Mr. Perry’s first campaign stop in Iowa, a questioner asked the governor to talk about how he would fix the country’s rickety entitlement programs. Mr. Perry shot back: “Have you read my book, ‘Fed Up!Get a copy and read it.

In the book, Mr. Perry dings politicians who don’t have the courage to take on Social Security. So what is his position now? “The governor wants to see the benefits for existing retirees and those close to Social Security be strongly protected,” Mr. Sullivan said. Beyond that, “he believes a full review and discussion of entitlement reforms need to be had, aimed at seeing that programs like Social Security and Medicare are fiscally responsible and actuarially sound.

The fact that Perry’s campaign is saying the book is not a “2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto” while Perry himself is saying “read my book” [rather than just answer a question] should bother voters. It should bother them a lot.

The Perry campaign is saying “don’t believe a word in it, it’s irrelevant now” while their guy is saying hey, go read my meaningless words!

We already know we can’t trust the words written on the page, so why bother?

It’s also hypocritical for to Perry call out others who don’t have the courage to do something about Social Security, when it sure sounds like he doesn’t either.

Now wait, hold the phone, as I write this, I see a new report from the Los Angeles Times. It’s all OK now, Perry is back to attacking Social Security again![emphasis mine]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is standing firm in insisting that Social Security, the federal government’s insurance programs for retirees and disabled, is a Ponzi scheme designed to deceive the young.

In a weekend campaign stop in Ottumwa, Iowa, Perry, who has surged into the lead in the Republican presidential sweepstakes in at least one major poll, repeated his characterization of the social insurance program that is generally supported by the electorate. He has made the same point before, especially in his book, “Fed Up!,” though at one point his campaign tried to explain that he had softened his language.

There’s more.

So Perry “softened” his rhetoric, his campaign disavowed his book, and now it’s all back on. See, it’s all better now!

The Hill reported a few days ago that something else Rick Perry was all for in the book, the “flat tax” is being distanced by the campaign:

The campaign of Texas governor and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry is being hounded by statements he has made.

The Perry campaign on Monday was, once again, trying to distance itself from another policy prescription in Perry’s book, “Fed Up!,” which was released last year.

In the book, Perry argues that the federal government should repeal the 16th Amendment — which grants Congress wide leeway to levy income taxes — and institute instead a “flat tax” that would tax all Americans at the same rate, regardless of income.

But a Perry spokesman conceded Monday that dramatic income tax reform was likely a non-starter, according to The Washington Post. The campaign declined to reaffirm support for the repeal of the 16th Amendment or the passage of a flat or national sales tax, despite continuing to assert that the current tax code is “onerous, complex and confusing.”

Read more here.

So which is it?

The book is a full throated defense of the flat tax, and Perry laid out a reasonable plan, but now the campaign “declined to reaffirm support“? Does Perry believe a flat tax is the answer, or not? Or is it all just too damned hard?

How does one count this anyway? Is it a flip-flop, or pure political cowardice?

Sorry, but I want a candidate who says what they mean, and means what they say. I don’t want “nuance” or “softened” rhetoric. I don’t want someone who’ll write a book, and when asked a question, instead of answering, refers people to that book, while at the same time his campaign is saying you can’t really believe a word in that book!

I want someone, who when talking tough, and prescribing tough medicine, has the courage of their convictions. Someone who not only knows what must be done, but will actually do it, if elected. 

This is vintage Rick Perry though. Talks a good game, but when it’s post time, he comes up limp. Texans know this already.

I read Fed Up!. I enjoyed Fed Up!. I’d vote for the character “Rick Perry” portrayed in Fed up!. Sadly, “Rick Perry” is a fictional character, and doesn’t exist. The real Rick Perry is just another politician, and not a particularly appealing one at that.

I’ve asked readers before to look at Perry’s record. Not the media nonsense, not the smears, just his actual record as Governor of Texas. That’s all one needs to know to understand Perry is not suited for the job of President of these United States.

The book deal proves Perry is just another pandering political hack who wrote Fed Up! because he figured that’s what people wanted to hear. I’m not saying Perry didn’t believe some of what he wrote. [though his campaign is] What I’m saying is Perry isn’t prepared to defend what he said, or live by it.

Perry, like most career politicians can talk the talk, but has no intention of walking the walk.

America deserves better.

7 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

Jonathan Hoenig: Donald Trump is No Capitalist

By Gary P Jackson

Jonathan Hoenig, Managing Member of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, has some harsh words for “The Donald” in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal’s Smart Money blog: [emphasis mine]

Successful businessmen are oftentimes the worst defenders of capitalism. Recent financial interventions began not with President Obama , for example, but with the $30 billion bailout of Bear Stearns under the supposedly fiscally conservative Bush Administration and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs ( GS: 160.42, -1.05, -0.65% ) . The TARP slush fund , onerous Sarbanes-Oxley regulation and prescription drug entitlement were all their handiwork too.

Both Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway ( BRK.B: 81.68, -0.58, -0.70% ) and speculator/philanthropist George Soros are successful businessmen with extremely anti-capitalist ideals. Buffett proudly advocates for a highly progressive income tax where earnings are looted from one segment of the population and transferred to another . Soros has long supported centralized planning and heavy government intervention in the free market.

Yet because of their great individual wealth, their ideas are championed as business-savvy proposals which would lead to a stronger, more prosperous economy.

They would not – and neither would those of Donald Trump.

For example, Trump professes to support free trade, yet proposes a 25% tax on imported goods from China to level what he sees as trade imbalances in the global economy. It’s a contemptuous proposal which would immediately punish Americans by raising the price on virtually everything we buy.

He has also called for regulators to stop European stock operator Deutsche Börse’s ( DBOEY ) planned $9.5 billion buyout of the NYSE Euronext ( NYX: 37.85, +0.26, +0.69% ) , telling Fox Business Network, “I don’t want foreign countries owning the New York Stock Exchange.” If he was the president, he added, he “wouldn’t even have allowed the discussions to take place.In a capitalist country, shareholders make that kind of decision, not regulators . Trump sees a clear role for government picking winners and losers in the economy, just the same as the previous presidents he claims to critique.

On top of that, he has pushed for a one-time 14.25% tax on the rich as a means of supplementing funding for Social Security and Medicaid, along with universal health care .

Philosophically, those positions are indistinguishable from the anti-capitalist political establishment now in power.

Trump, of course, is free to run and support whatever platform he wishes, as are his many fans across the country. But despite his personal fortune, they should know his proposals and political philosophy are far from capitalist. Punitive and redistributionist taxes, centralized planning, barriers to trade and an entitlement “social safety net” are all ideas straight out of Karl Marx , not John Galt .

You need a person like me to run this country for a while because we have to get this country back so that we’re respected again.” Trump told CNN recently.

A businessman whose proposals seek to destroy capitalism? There’s nothing to respect about that.

Read more here.

The old saying “buyer beware” has never been more appropriate. Donald Trump is not what he seems.

Voters were hoodwinked by Obama and his rhetoric. Trumps record and ideas are more in line with Barack Obama [and Karl Marx] than any Conservative or Tea party member.

Trump is simply playing his supporters for fools, just like Obama did to his in 2008.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized