green-tech (7)




               You’ve heard of “Honest Abe” and “Gorgeous George” – let’s introduce you to “Sly Steven” Chu, American Energy Secretary.  And while we’re at it, move over Solyndra, Chevy Volt and Ener1, Inc., according to documents uncovered by the House Oversight Committee it appears Arizona-based Obama-supporting business leaders of First Solar, Incorporated received at least $3.1 billion of its total of $4.5 billion in loan guarantees based largely upon “adjustments” made to First Solar’s loan application by Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s personnel suggesting falsification of documents and/or corner-cutting by the Energy Dept. itself was required to get the loans approved.  According to an ABC News story, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (a Republican from California) accused the Department of Energy of “manipulating analysis, ignoring objections from career professional scientists and business people and strategically modifying” loan evaluations in order to “force project funding out the door.”   The Energy Dept. vehemently denied the charges, “The Department backed loans for two innovative solar projects that will support hundreds of jobs and provide clean power to tens of thousands of homes,” according to spokesman Damien LaVera.

          The roughly 3,250 permanent green energy jobs created in three-plus years across the whole nation by the Obama administration’s green-tech emphasis has thus far cost taxpayers $38 billion or more than $1.15 million for each permanent job, 90% of which pay less than $15/hr.

          Energy officials insisted to ABC News that the department followed a rigorous process to evaluate each applicant, and the two projects being scrutinized by Issa's committee are some of the most exciting solar ventures underway in the United States. If successful, the massive generating facilities would be by far the largest of their kind in the world -- comprised of more than five million solar panels and 35,000 metric tons of steel.  Note the confusion between newness and excitement and solid business decision-making.  Meanwhile Issa and his committee say they sifted through tens of thousands of pages of internal records turned over by the Energy Department in response to their requests.  The granting of multiple loans to First Solar, a solar energy giant based in Arizona to create Agua Caliente in Arizona and the Antelope Valley Solar Ranch in California and then turn these facilities over to utility companies is unusual (First Solar also received a separate $1.5 billion loan).  The standard for the loans was not “viability” and not “potential profit” but rather merely providing evidence that the projects “would employ new and innovative technologies to generate energy.”  It appears that Energy Dept. officials “adjusted” First Solar loan documentation to fulfill this requirement.  It appears that First Solar did not qualify even upon this narrow requirement.  Among the documents the Oversight Committee cites is an email from a top technical expert inside the department, written well before the loans to First Solar were approved, in which the scientist argues one of the supposed advances -- use of a "single axis tracker" -- was actually not new at all.

          "Be clear this is not an innovation," wrote Dong K. Kim, the director of the loan program's technical division. "The record will show we did not grade this as an innovation."  Kim also wrote that "someone keeps changing" internal documents to hold out the tracking technology as innovative. And he warns that "whoever continues to make this change needs to understand that Technical does not support” emphasis of the trackers as an actual innovative component the Energy Department itself has identified their use in over 200 units in Europe, according to the internal documents.

          "These facts make clear DOE substantively failed to fund innovation, and instead gambled with $3 billion taxpayer dollars on a single firm, First Solar," said Becca Watkins, an oversight committee spokeswoman.  Meanwhile despite the positive spin put upon matters by company officials, First Solar is not proving profitable and only the huge government loans so far have kept the company afloat.  .

          First Solar, Inc. officials say they are forecasting more than $3 billion in revenue this year (revenue, NOT profits, you’ll notice) but acknowledged the company has suffered along with the rest of the solar industry. The company's stock has been sliding, and has become a favorite for so-called stock market "short sellers" -- investors who are betting on the company to fail.  While this Solyndra story might serve as a case-study in venture-socialism, this January’s failure of once highly respected Ener1, Inc., a huge maker of automobile batteries intended for green vehicles, provides a much more significant cautionary note.  Ener1’s financial collapse appears to have occurred NOT because their product is lacking in technological merit, but rather because there is no market for the recipient’s of Ener1’s batteries:  ultra-expensive, low-performance green autos. 

*          *          *

           In related news and relevant background:  Energy Sec. Chu, of course, who has come under attack for a long and repeated history of advocating letting American gasoline prices rise to European levels, last week on Capitol Hill, Chu said he “no longer” believes that way; President Obama, for his part has embarked upon a nationwide “gas-price-apology tour” aimed at denying any and all responsibility for gasoline price rises of $2/gallon (national average $1.83 in January, 2009; $3.85 today) and rising since he took office.  And even though the mainstream media won’t hold you accountable for it, you and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar were informed three weeks prior to the BP Gulf spill that big problems were in the works at the Deepwater Horizon site and were still ready to present BP with a national safety award . . . and then POUNCE!  Your opportunity came with the BP oil spill and you shut down drilling EVERYWHERE and put into effect a shameless foot-dragging policy of grudging approvals where you had no choice. 

           When I was a college student, one of the psychological principles I learned about was called “word magic.”   No, I’m not referring to the two magic words “Please” and “Thanks,” but rather to the childish use of words and labels (positive and negative) to seek to affect and change the world to our liking rather than dealing with it (the world) in a more adult fashion.  Mr. Obama used word magic in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008 which was never run (it’s still on the paper’s website and now found all over the internet, however) by the Chronicle or any other mainstream media (MSM) in which he pledged to “bankrupt the coal industry” and bragged that “under my environmental policies and cap and trade, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.”  Mr. Obama seems to believe that merely by saying “green energy” his words will create a viable reality.  Sorry, Mr. President but algae won’t make my car run presumably anytime in the next couple centuries.  The two top green energies are hydro-electric power and wood-burning just as they were back in 1940.  Wood-burning, of course, is renewable and not particularly clean . . . nevertheless, wood-burning provides 2.5% of America’s energy which is more than solar, wind, geothermal, and cold fusion combined.  Face the facts; you’re saying that oil is the “energy of the past” doesn’t make it true.  And your equating drilling to create lower gasoline prices with “snake oil” is a monstrous lie.  The only ones selling snake oil to the public is you, Barack Obama, and your progressive sycophants.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…


   Today, January, 2012, we now know those Spanish projections were outrageously positive for the President’s green energy programs.  The real results have been much, much worse according to the liberal Washington Post.


$5 Million for One

Obama Green-Tech Job


   In 2007-2008, candidate Barack Obama threatened “to create 5 million new green-tech jobs.”  Based upon green-energy experience in Spain where Europe’s strongest 1997 economy with only 4% unemployment became today’s second-weakest (Greece worst) with roughly 22% unemployment:  green-tech is 150 years ahead of its time:  just not practical.  Based upon Spain’s example expect 5 million subsidized green jobs to eliminate 11 million real jobs created by American free markets.  But only 10% of Spanish green jobs proved permanent meaning those 11 million real jobs would be lost for only 500,000 permanent green jobs paying $10-$14 per hour.  Spain’s permanent green jobs cost $676,000 each.

   Today, January, 2012, we now know that those projections were outrageously positive for the President’s green energy programs.  The real results have been much, much worse according to the liberal Washington Post, of all surprising news sources:   after Solyndra’s bankruptcy resulted in the loss of all 1,100 jobs at the heavily subsidized plant the scoreboard reads:  a mere 3,545 (so-far) permanent green jobs created at a cost of nearly $19.5 billion or roughly $5 million per permanent green job created. 

   Green research continues but it’s probably a dead end.   Fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) which Obama hates (his EPA is now closing down coal-powered plants) still account for 82.1% of all American energy (coal 46%).  Nuclear energy accounts for roughly 10.2%. Hydro-electric plants yield 2.8%, all renewable and clean, but environmentalist want to remove most to benefit fish spawning.  The next largest renewable energy is about 2.7% from burning wood.  All the rest of green energy put together still accounts for less than wood-burning.  In 2013, a G.H.W. Bush-era uranium deal with Russia expires potentially driving nuclear electricity costs sky high.   Russia’s not eager to renew; environmentalists strongly oppose nuclear energy. 

   Obama, of course,

     1) has refused to approve the Keystone Pipeline

     2) has refused to develop the Bakken Field oil fields in the Northern Missouri River Valley area.  With them the United States has larger oil resources than Saudi Arabia.  Thank God, some of that oil is beneath North Dakota Indian reservations.  The Native Americans don't have to follow Obama's stupid drilling moratoriums and they aren't.

     3) Still has a Gulf Drilling moratorium and a ban on Alaska's Anwar area

     4) Refuses to expand natural gas use (we have the largest deposits in the world)

     5) Refuses to consider use of marlstone a.k.a. "oil shale".  The Colorado, Utah and Wyoming deposits would yield enough gasoline to provide the entire world's needs for 600 years at present consumption levels.

    6) Refuses to quit his wasteful green-tech loan programs and will spend another $19.3 Billion in 2012 and 2013

    7) Listens to his environmental contingent and they want dams removed and their hydro-electricity with them; and oppose all nuclear-powered electricity generation.


Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,



Read more…


Obama Ignores “Going Concern Doubt” Analysis
Before Cheerfully Subsidizing Solyndra
                Did you know that the recently bankrupt Solyndra, green-tech firm propped up with $535 million federal assistance wanted to go public? That they wanted to go public and sell stock in the company even before Mr. Obama began touting them? That the planned initial public offering (IPO) was abandoned. That one of the steps required before any IPO is an audit of the company finances and an examination of their business plan for the future? That the solar-power panel company’s finances were so awful that two months before an Obama visit to Solyndra the accounting firm of Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLC warned investors that Solyndra had financial problems so deep that they “raised substantial doubt about it ability to continue as a going concern?” Did you know that the standard wording from audits which use the word “doubt” and “going concern” in the same sentence is known in the business world as the “Kiss of Death” letter and means that over 80% of the firms so described will NOT be in business a year from now?
            Did you know that a day before Solyndra went belly-up that the Energy Department turned down a request to renegotiate the loan agreement because another “restructuring was not feasible.” Did you know that one month before that . . . Solyndra executives were allegedly telling California representative Henry Waxman that everything was going great and the company expected to “double revenues in 2012?  Does that mean they expected to lose twice as much money as well? Could it be they hoped Rep. Waxman would take their threat** as a promise? Did you know Solyndra spent more than $480,000 on lobbying in Washington in the last 365 days? Could it be they hoped Congress and the Obama administration could be cajoled into helping them endlessly?
            Three more questions?   Would you have been as cheerful knowing the financial status of the company as President Obama and Vice President Biden were during their many Solyndra photo op visits? Do you believe, as your blogger Rajjpuut does, that Mr. Obama’s proclivity for throwing money at problems (a mere cash infusion will make everything okey-dokey at Solyndra right away) blinded him to the reality that Solyndra was a losing proposition, a reality that any sensible person should have seen? Would Obama have invested HIS money as recklessly as he did YOURS? Does the FBI routinely raid bankrupt companies? Oooops, that’s four questions.
            On his May 2010 photo op when Obama told America that the Solyndra California factory he was visiting, subsidized by U.S. taxpayers displayed “the promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith.” Despite the two month lead time to read over and understand the Pricewaterhouse financial analysis, it appears certain that Mr. Obama did believe that throwing money at Solyndra’s way would “turn the ugly duckling into a swan.” Mr. Obama also seems to be ignorant of the fact that good money can be sent after bad, but never should be. The inevitable abandonment of the IPO; the whole history of Solyndra’s existence (never once showing a single profitable quarter in five years); and then allowing a last-minute effort to refinance with taxpayers (the most important investors) taking a back seat to the new investors . . . none of these obvious red flags seemed to alarm the president about OUR money. Mr. Obama refused to accept what was obvious to anyone who chose to open their eyes and their mind.
            Eric Shultz, a Whitehouse spokesman, thinks we’re all stupid and that it’s still possible to pull the wool over our magnifying glasses and fool us about Solyndra and Obama’s green-tech initiatives. Schultz said in an e-mailed statement that selection of companies to receive U.S. backing are “merit- based decisions made by career staffers at the Department of Energy. He added that the process for this particular loan application had begun under President George W. Bush, not mentioning that the loan was denied for three consecutive years by the Bush administration.  “Every project that receives financing through the Energy Department goes through a rigorous financial, legal and technical review process.” WOW, really??? Really??? Let’s see now? 
The Obama $787 Billion stimulus was supposed to create jobs. So far the green-tech initiatives (Mr. Obama promised to create five million new green jobs in his first term) have created roughly 3,500 jobs total at an average cost of $10.88 MILLION per green job taking an average of 1.4 years to create each job. Solyndra just laid off 1,100 workers when it filed for bankruptcy. Exactly how “rigorous” is this financial, legal and technical review process anyway?  Could it be that government playing “venture capitalists” is a very bad, indeed ruinous idea? Could it be that the 72% of the Obama stimulus was aimed at Obama cronies and Obama campaign supporters without regard to ethics or financial reality?
Of course you’ve probably heard that Energy Secretary Steven Chu made a public commitment to “speed up the approval process” of green-tech applications for federal loans and subsidies. How wonderful!
Bottom line: Solyndra disclosed the “going concern” warning by PricewaterhouseCoopers, its accounting firm, in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on March 16, 2010.  So it’s quite possible that Solyndra’s execs up until the time they told Rep. Waxman that everything was going great, etc. were dealing an honest hand . . . which makes the Obama administration criminally negligent with the taxpayer’s money. The warning read:
“The company has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders’ deficit,”
In June 2010, the month after the President Obama visit mentioned above, Solyndra executives withdrew their planned $300 million IPO.   Solyndra’s business model was based upon a supposedly strong competitive advantage employing thinner panels that could be used on virtually any roof and because they used less of the expensive silicone it was felt that the cost of their more expensive technology could be somewhat balanced by the lower cost of resources. Silicone prices have fallen recently and fell another 30% in the last year evaporating any hope of the company ever becoming competitive in the marketplace. Problems and temporary solutions for Solyndra kept taxpayer money slipping down a rat-hole after that. 
In February of this year House Republicans began investigating Solyndra’s loan-guarantee program and sent a letter to Energy Secretary Chu announcing their actions. The investigations so far point to crony-capitalism and a surprising new twist: socialist venture capitalism as the Obama administration sought to pick the winners and losers in the marketplace with foolish infusions of money into failing concerns in favored industries. The Republican investigations showed that Obama campaign fundraiser George Kaiser’s foundation (George Kaiser Family Foundation based in Tulsa, OK) owns 37% of Solyndra. Mr. Kaiser made 16 visits to the White House since 2009 according to visitor logs. 
Besides the statements allegedly made to Rep. Waxman that Solyndra “was in a strong financial position” a July 13 letter from Solyndra to the Energy Committee said revenue had increased to $140 million from just $6 million in 2008 and was projected to almost double in 2012.    Could it be that the Energy department doesn’t understand that if you’re selling more product but losing money on each sale . . . that doesn’t mean too much. The idea is to make a GASP “profit.” Yes, yes, we know that’s considered an ugly word in the liberal, progressive and socialist lexicon . . . but such are the facts of life.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
** Rajjpuut strongly suspects that the good congressman may be throwing Solyndra’s execs under the infamous bus. Mr. Waxman is purportedly part of the gang that was pushing so hard for Solyndra to get the federal dough. It’s also possible he’s merely stupid. An awful lot of people do NOT actually listen too well . . . instead they tend to hear either what they fear; or what they want to hear. Being told revenues have gone up 23 times in three years and that revenues would almost double again in 2012 . . . is clearly NOT the same as being told that PROFITS have gone up 23 times and would almost double . . . sad but true but politicos seldom can be expected to sympathize with nor understand business jargon. So, Friend, what questions would you have asked here? Perhaps something silly like, “Wow, that sounds impressive, so how much money are you guys making? Perhaps the progressive politicians being in “over-their-heads” when dealing with business explains why it’s been 900 days since the Democratically-controlled Senate passed a budget? Or why the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives didn’t pass a 2011 budget?  It could explain a lot.  The fact is that despite Hollywood's eternal enthrallment with "lovable losers," in politics as in the rest of life:  incompetence (unlike absence) does NOT make the heart grow fonder.
Read more…




     “The president of the United States, Barack Obama, doesn’t seem to have chosen the right model to copy for his “green economy,” Spain. After the government of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero demonized a study of different experts about the fatal economic consequences of renewable energies, an internal document from the Spanish cabinet that it is even more negative has just been leaked. 




Green-Tech Model Advocated by Obama

Destroyed the Prosperous Spanish Economy

Undisclosed Debt Revelations Startle Voters



     First Greece, then Ireland and Portugal, now Spain, next America?  Two reports by the every vigilant Pajamas Media (PJM); and numerous other revelations from Spain are painting an ugly picture of political corruption, stupidity and rampant cronyism in eastern Iberia.  The Spanish Socialist government has issued a secret report showing that their green-tech jobs program destroyed the country’s once prosperous economy. 2011’s 21.3% UNEMPLOYMENT  figure confirms their confession as did the PJM’s uncovering of the original story.

     In 1997, Spain was the most prosperous European economy and one of the strongest in the world:  unemployment stood at less than 4%.  The country’s most popular political power, the Socialist Party began movement toward a green economy at that time.  Today, unemployment is five and a half times as high.  The elections in Spain in 2010 sent the ruling Socialists out of power; but people are today none too happy with the traditionally weaker Conservative Party either.  Most people believe that all the politicians in Spain pass laws to benefit themselves and do little for the people.  The country’s tiny Moderate Party made big gains in the 2010 elections and is expected to do even better in the 2012 ones.  The Socialists, however, are truly under-the-gun since recent revelations of heretofore huge unacknowledged debt has dealt an angry surprise to the voters and may force the nation to follow in the footsteps of bankrupt Greece, Ireland and Portugal and require a bailout from the international monetary fund (which American voters largely finance).

     Piles of undisclosed debt in local government associated with the operation of the country’s green-tech jobs programs are shaking up a political scene that was pretty much in chaos to begin with.  Spain, which had been doing everything it could to avoid becoming the next European bailout recipient, is far worse off than its people had been led to believe.  The huge debt revelations in 2010 seemed to indicate that the Socialists were waiting for the Conservatives to discover it after the election so the voters might “shoot the messenger” in the next election.  Unfortunately for the Socialists, the truth emerged and anger has remained rampant along the Costa del Sol and throughout the Spanish countryside over the last year.   Even today Spain has had trouble eradicating the debt and regaining a firm economic footing because of contract disputes with green energy companies created by the Socialist’s green energy programs.

     It all began with the first “offseason” government change earlier in 2010 in Catalonia which revealed a budget deficit there more than twice what had been reported earlier.  Piles of “hidden debt” are still being revealed to the new government related to the green program and to health clinics and other suppliers . . . in short, economists and analysts and numerous anecdotal reports from companies that supply local governments in Spain indicate widespread, unrecorded debt.  Companies complained that the Socialists when in power pressured them to do business off-the-books rather than immediately bill for goods and services according to  Fernando Eguidazu, vice president of the Circulo de Empresarios business lobby group in Madrid.  This chicanery continues to add tens of billions of euros to the official debt figures reported by local and regional governments.

     Undermined by a 21.3% unemployment rate and a perceived slowness in reacting to the country’s economic crisis, the Socialists lost control of the municipal governments of Barcelona and Seville, the country’s second- and third-largest cities.  Young people are protesting everywhere including the main plazas of Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia.  Unemployment among those in their 20’s and 30’s reached 50% in many areas at the height of the Spanish crisis. 

      Pajamas Media’s exclusive original story about the leaked Spanish government report in 2010 was confirmed later by several Spanish newspapers.   Yes, the very same Spanish “green economy” policies  that Barack Obama has modeled his administration’s green-jobs programs upon . . . have been cited by the Socialist government that created them as an “expensive, ineffective and unworkable disaster.”  The first Spanish newspaper on the scent was La Gaceta, a Madrid daily.  At about the time the story “went viral” the Socialist government came out with an admission that it was true. 

For Americans the shocker has to be that the headline in La Gaceta (the Gazette) seemed to be aimed squarely at a USA target audience as it screams out (English Translation Provided by Rajjpuut):

“Spain admits that the green economy

Sold to Obama is a disaster.”



     The Spanish public is still up in arms.  An academic team in Spain revealed all this in 2007 and was treated monstrously by the country’s media and by the ruling Socialists trying to discredit the survey’s purpose as purely political and without merit (Americans will recall that when the results of the Spanis study were brought up in a press conference, Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made fun of the questioner).  Dr. Gabriel Calzada, the Spaniard who first exposed the disaster in 2007 was finally vindicated despite taking mountains of flack from the progressive academic establishment at his own and other universities across the country. 

     Professor Calzada is today often still  featured on all the nation’s most important news and business talk shows.  Despite all the nasty attacks he received, the good professor had enough integrity to stick by his guns these last four years and a year ago even wrote praise for “The dissection of ‘free-ice cream green jobs economics’” on the book jacket of Power Grab:  How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America by American author Christopher C. Horner, a Pajamas Media watchdog whose book bears this enscription on the inside flap:  “Barack Obama’s ‘Green’ Policies Start With Controlling Your Energy…and End With Your Life.”



     This scandal associated with deliberately villifying Calzada and covering up the truth for three years, however, pales in contrast with the undisclosed debt still popping up everywhere in the country.  But Spaniards and Americans would do well to remember that the problems associated with our own financial meltdown** and with Spain’s collapse began years ago with misguided and deliberate progressive policies (more later).  For now remember this, in Calzada’s study:

       A)   2.2 real jobs in the real economy were lost for each green-tech job subsidized by the Spanish government. 

       B)   The average subsidized green tech job there (although counted equally with all the lost permanent jobs in the real economy) lasted less than a year. 

       C)   Only 10% of all the Spanish green-tech jobs proved permanent.

       D)  So, in reality, 22 real jobs in the real economy were lost for every permanent green job created in Spain

       E)   The average green tech job there paid roughly $12.20.

       F)   The owners of Spanish solar plants make 12 times more than what they pay for the energy coming from fossil fuel combustion. The majority of this profit comes from subsidies charged to the consumer via taxes.

     The long-run numbers are even scarier for Spain.  The government itself in recent revelation says that the alternative energies sector are stil scheduled to receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years.  And things bode very badly for America:   Pajamas Media put it like this: 

      “The president of the United States, Barack Obama, doesn’t seem to have chosen the right model to copy for his “green economy,” Spain. After the government of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero demonized a study of different experts about the fatal economic consequences of renewable energies, an internal document from the Spanish cabinet that it is even more negative has just been leaked.

     To one of the authors of the first report, Gabriel Calzada, “the government has leaked it intentionally in order to turn the media against renewable energies and to be stronger in negotiations with businesses.”  On eight occasions, the occupant of the White House referred to the Spanish model as an example to follow.  Barack Obama wants us to enjoy the same success the Spanish have known from green energy.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,




** In America, the second wave of progressive sabotage began with the progressives in the Carter administration in 1977 passing the CRA ’77 legistlation that first forced private sector home lenders to make knowingly ill-advised loans to unqualified home loan applicants.  This travesty was multiplied four times by Bill Clinton (Bush, Sr. has a bit of the guilt on his resume as well); attacked this ridiculous law and exposed its weaknesses using Cloward-Piven Strategy by ACORN which controlled Bill Clintons electoral destiny for eighteen years.  Even ACORN lawyer Barack Obama did his part.  Overall the suspect loan rate in 1975 0.24%; became 0.51% in 1985; 14.2% in 1995 (after a Clinton regulatory expansion and two legislative expansions); and 34% in 2005. 

Thanks to ACORN many of these suspect loans after Clinton’s 1998 steroid version final expansion of CRA’77 put people without jobs; with abysmal credit ratings; with only food stamps to declare as “income” into $250,000 to $450,000 homes at zero downpament.  Bush, Jr. who is getting all the blame now . . . in January, 2005 (one of 19 such speeches and vote efforts) tried to repeal CRA laws and only succeeded thirty months later in getting a very weak version of his law passed in July, 2007.  It all proved too little too late, but did help some.  Today, much of the CRA legislation is still on the books waiting another ACORN push.  Of course, the mainstream media runs with the progressive line that “the conservatives and the free market put our economy into the ditch.”

By the way, the First Wave of sabotage ended when the federal government bailed out bankrupt New York City in 1975.  New York State and many states and other large cities were also driven near the point of bankruptcy and the stock market suffered its biggest losses (46%) since the Great Depression (sound familiar?) . . . thanks to the progressive-left’s implementation of Cloward-Piven Strategy and Alinsky tactics to deliberately double the welfare rolls from eight to sixteen million people in seven years and overload the system as promised. This also was a deliberate sabotage by the progressive left.  Rajjpuut has explained the matter in deep detail in numerous blogs.   Find another take on the Cloward-Piven Strategy history leading to the bankruptcy of NYC, here:


Read more…
“Thanks to the American media’s blackout of the Climategate scandal revelations in East Anglia, England, Americans have not been privy to the revolution in thinking going on in Europe over the last thirteen months. Two terms, in particular: “Watermelons” and “Mean Greenies” have come to dominate the Europeans’ new evaluation of the leaders in the environmental movement in general and of the Global Warming alarmists in particular.”


Time to Strain Your “Belief Muscles” Again?

You may have trouble believing this story IF you believe the following lies propagated by Progressive politicians for the last 20-50 years:

A. We’re running out of oil in the world. This blog will change that notion for you.

B. We’ve long ago run out of oil in the United States. This blog will set you straight.

C. Man-made global warming is endangering the planet. Most real scientists here in America and almost all real scientists in Europe are positive that statement is Untrue (see the top link below this paragraph). In fact our American media silence in the United States on those two facts (the truth about global warming itself; and America’s scientists’ convictions about global warming even before the Climategate conspiracy was unmasked) amounts to a huge betrayal of the American people and of our U.S. Constitution. The “Climategate” e-mail release thirteen months ago in Europe has only been covered here in the United States by the Wall Street Journal and FOX News among the media but the internet, both here and in Europe, is alive with it. While Americans have believed that Global Warming is dooming us, Europe over the last year has almost totally discredited these alarmists (in case you missed out on the Climategate revelations and upon the biggest scientific fraud within the global warming lie: the next two links will put you onto the truth).

D. Environmental leaders (known in Europe as “Watermelons” and “mean greenies”) have your health, prosperity and happiness in mind always.

E. Only Green-Tech can save our planet and our economies in the long run.

The lies associated with items D and E immediately above are a bit complicated, but will roll out of the information below. Before we get to the meat of the blog, let’s clear up the key source of almost all of the lies you’ve been fed about energy over the last 50 years; and the source of the great majority of the political lies spread about the world over the last 162 years. American “Progressivism” (which called itself by that name for about a quarter century and then called themselves liberals for over 80 years) is based upon English Fabian Socialism. The key group pushing these ideas for almost 130 years now is called the Fabian Society:

The key belief of American progressives is that we must “progress” beyond the outdated and ill-conceived U.S. Constitution so that we can “progress” toward their notion of an earthly Utopia where, they say, we’ll take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his needs (the 162 year old desire of Karl Marx writing in Das Kapital). If you have never before seen the Fabian Society unmasked; and “kindly” George Bernard Shaw stripped naked beyond Pigmalion and My Fair lady, you owe it to yourself, to America and to our future to visit the website just above. The Fabian Society also gave us the London School of Economics closely tied to the American progressive desire for a single global ruling elite. The London School of Economics also gave us George Soros.

At the risk of seeming racist, let Rajjpuut say this: George Soros can aptly be called “Barack Obama’s MASSA.” He is the puppet master pulling the strings of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and American progressivism.

The eighty year old Mr. Soros can accurately be compared to the ageless Emperor in the Star Wars movies. He grew up as a fourteen year old capo, a Jew working with Hitler’s Nazis, getting other Hungarian Jews to “report” for their transportation to the death camps. He’s only become more sinister since.

Known as “the man who broke the Bank of England” super rich Mr. Soros went from hundred-millionaire and became a multi-billionaire by profiting from wrecking four countries’ currencies over the last 24 years). Mr. Soros has said on more than one occasion, “The number one obstacle to world stability is the United States.” He aims to destroy our currency, impoverish the country, and with the help of the 48 progressive American non-profit foundations he’s created (start with the Tides Foundation; Center for American Progress; and his Open Society Institutes and spread your research from there . . . Mr. Soros is one helluva busybody at a time in his life when most people are content to go fishing) Georgie is seeking to push us all into one-world government led by elites like . . . well, George Soros), he may well succeed.

Progressives in general and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros, who have all broken bread together on many occasions, now want to break your back. That’s where the lies come from. Back to our main points of interest . . . .

Item #1 At this present moment, Green-Tech is a flim-flam.


Natural Law (mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Federalist Papers and applying to such things as the Law of Gravity as well as to human behavior) discoveries in the area of wind tech; solar tech; etc. are 300 million years behind fossil fuel. We’re NOT saying that some new Edison in five years won’t or can’t revolutionize the entire green-tech picture and eliminate the need for fossil fuels overnight. What we are saying is that green-tech right now right here is science-fiction from a viable nationwide standpoint. Is that a serious problem? If the underlying scientific principles required to make PRACTICAL energy on a grand national scale don’t yet exist . . . everything based upon saying that “YES, YES THEY DO TOO EXIST!!” is a scam and a national betrayal. How big a national betrayal? Consider this: In 1997, Spain had the healthiest economy in Europe and was creating the most jobs on that continent with unemployment about 4%. Today Spain is one of seven seriously near-bankrupt European countries with unemployment at 2o.8%. How did that happen?

Spain bought into green-tech in 1998 and began to heavily subsidize clean energy jobs. Results of a Spanish green-tech study done three years ago show that 2.2 jobs in the real economy were lost for every single green-tech job created. Like Obama with the stimulus (where jobs lasting one week were credited the same as permanent jobs), the Spanish exaggerated the job creations via green-tech. Only 10% of Spain’s green-tech jobs proved permanent and most paid between U.S. $10-$14. Mr. Obama has promised to give us “five million new green-tech jobs” which extrapolated toward the Spanish example would lose us eleven million real jobs; only 10% of those newly created green jobs would prove permanent meaning that only 500,000 permanent jobs would be created and we would have an American version of the Spanish green-tech experience on our hands . . . a 22/1 debacle in lost jobs compared to jobs created (11 million real jobs lost; only 500,000 modestly-paying green-tech jobs created).

So for those of you who thought Mr. Obama was exaggerating when he told the San Francisco Chronicle that his policies “would bankrupt the coal industry” and “under my policies of cap and trade the price of electricity would necessarily skyrocket” . . . he was a straight-shooter on coal and the cost of electricity, but he was hugely exaggerating about the “benefits” of green-tech jobs at this point in time because the technology does NOT exist.

Item #1.5 The oil critics are NOT asking the right questions . . .

. . . that’s why they keep giving you and me only the answers they want us to hear and never tell us the truth . . . .

The answers they want us to hear are wind, solar power and other “Magic Clean Green” energy sources that do NOT actually exist in any meaningful way on a national scale. The truth is that fossil fuels are and have been the preferred source of power because right here and right now only fossil fuels make sense. In a nutshell, the question comes down to practical, efficient and cheap energy. Fossil fuels are all three and they’re getting cheaper (except for artificial barriers thrown in our way by environmental regulations to make slow, inefficient and expensive green vehicles look somewhat more attractive) by the day. For example the Swedes have come up with a cheap way to make extraction much more efficient for getting out 60% of the unreachable oil. For example the Canadians have “trained” a tiny microbe to allow them to take previously worthless coal tar and turn it into clean-burning methane gas. If the only answer the media and the politicians and the greenies want you to hear is so-called “green-energy” (solar power requires huge pollution and energy use in the manufacturing stages) then the truth will not get to you and the actual dollar savings you’d be expecting can just be taxed away.

Item #2 Would you believe our conventional oil supplies will quadruple or quintuple in your lifetime if we want them to?

It’s true.

As the price of oil rises and the technology for extracting it improves dramatically, we are every day returning to old “dried out wells” and eventually harvesting two to three times the original yield of those wells. Besides that, exploration methods seeking new wells are now about 400% more accurate, so less money is wasted drilling “dry-holes.” Here in the United States and southern Canada we have also discovered the Bakken Formation, which is the largest oil reserve ever found, bigger in area than the entire Middle East . . . of course we’re not allowed to drill there thanks to ridiculous prohibitions and only the reservation Indians are taking advantage of it so far. It’s also true that the same people who are limiting our drilling have seen to it that this country has not built a new oil refinery since 1974! By the way, the oil is there if we choose to go after it. We may reasonably NOT want to go after it, however, read on . . . .

Item #3 Would you believe that if we want it, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming could supply the energy needs of this country for five to six hundred years?

Also true. Keragen or Marlstone (usually MISnamed: “oil shale”) deposits in western Colorado as well as Utah and Wyoming hold that much stored energy. These deposits require a “mining” approach rather than a conventional oilman’s drilling etc. The Indians told the Whites about the “rock that burns” 155 years ago, now if we want it, we’ve got boundless energy sources using that keragen. We may, however, reasonably decide we don’t want it. Read on . . . .

Item #4 Would you believe that Items #2 and #3 above quite possibly are going to prove unattractive within a dozen years?

Without the government’s interference and without resorting to fraudulent energy sources such as ethanol (which costs much, much more in pollution start to finish; and significantly more in money –if subsidies are added in - than oil), it appears that the recent discovery of the Natural Law underlying MAN’S creation of oil in the near future will bear huge fruit. Unlike ethanol and other plant-based synfuels subsidized by the government, the cost of foodstuffs like corn will not skyrocket if and when these new technologies are perfected. You’ve heard of things like Castrol’s synthetic oil . . . this is something different, using algae to replace the 300 million year process of creating oil, coal, natural gas, etc. When this becomes reality, then a point will be reached where the price of oil says that keragen and oil in the ground will become far less desirable than letting nature take its course under the watchful eyes of man above ground.

Item #5 Would you believe that new technology called “cellular oil” could make all drilling and oil shale exploration moot questions?

That’s the name of the new technology.

Item #6 Would you believe that someone has a vested interest in our not hearing the terms “watermelon” or “mean greenie” here in America?

Thanks to the American media’s blackout of the Climategate scandal revelations in East Anglia, England, Americans have not been privy to the revolution in thinking going on in Europe over the last thirteen months. Two terms, in particular: “Watermelons” and “Mean Greenies” have come to dominate the Europeans’ new evaluation of the leaders in the environmental movement in general and of the Global Warming alarmists in particular. The term “mean greenie” has been around in England for some time. It describe folks who burn SUVs, deliberately foul fishing nets, destroy ski resorts, drive six inch spikes into trees in hopes of killing lumberjacks using chainsaws, and others who commit crimes against humans in the name of ecology. Lately “mean greenie” has seen a sudden upshot in popular usage in the media all over Europe. But the term “Watermelon” is something special that’s only become common since the Climategate e-mail revelations.

A “watermelon” is a so-called environmentalist who’s “green on the outside and pink to bright red on the inside.” That is, the leaders of much of the environmental movement are now seen in Europe as using the environment for pushing their real but hidden agenda, a heavily socialist or even Marxist agenda. What???? You see it’s like this, all of the Cap and Trade ideas needed (the progressives say) to stop Global Warming in its tracks can only efficiently be executed by a near totalitarian state . . . an all-powerful national government run as part of an even more powerful global government. And what is the basis of all this fraud?

The progressives are pretending that Natural Law no longer works. They want a crisis so they manufacture one with manufactured “science.” They want oil eliminated from the world scene so they pretend that Natural Law has advanced to the level that green-tech is viable, even though it’s not. Right now, the only Natural Law in force capable of providing energy for the whole planet at a practical price and effort is fossil fuel energy. Because of advances in Natural Law (laws we discover and use; NOT laws we make up!) tomorrow, man-made fossil fuel energy appears ready to supplant 300 million year old fossil fuels, and that is semi-green tech created by capitalism and individualism . . . not by a political elite defrauding the people** of the world.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


** These are the same people who had DDT banned because of false science (a la Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring) at a time when DDT had dropped malaria deaths (not to mention suffering from a lifetime of episodic three-day fever fits) down to 44,000 annually. The American and United Nations DDT ban has killed more than 70 million souls just to malaria, never mind all the other scourges that DDT avoids, since 1974. Today 2,100,000 people die from malaria every year and tropical nations are finally seeing the light and going back to DDT. If you read the Fabian Society material given above and the words of George Bernard Shaw you see this for what it is: deliberate population control a la eugenics . . . or if you’re a sucker for progressivism, you could call it just plain incompetence . . . and the more you check progressivism the more incompetence you find . . . consider our $113 TRillion in unfunded liabilities via Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid; or the unfunded liabilities created by the state side of Medicaid by the Obamacare Law which will bankrupt all 50 states by 2024 . . . or the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 requiring home lenders to deliberately make known bad loans which was expanded five times (four times just by ACORN President Bill Clinton: once by regulatory edict and three times via legislation) and took us from one “bad” loan in every 404 loans in 1975, to 2005 when 34% of all home loans were bad: thus giving us our sub-prime lending crisis and financial meltdown.

Whether you consider it incompetence or a deliberate attempt to undo capitalism and create chaos so that progressivism can step in offering their neat, sweet big government solutions . . . progressivism is the lethal cancer dominating the American scene and needs to be eradicated posthaste. Thankfully, the voters in November, 2010, saw that clearly.

Read more…

“Some men are genuine in their effort to communicate and to be communicated with, some are always pointing the conversation toward ulterior motives and superficial results (being unwilling to actually change) and though he tried to appear humbled and changed, Barack Obama is set on his course and America be damned.” Rajjpuut
His Obstinacy’ Barack Obama
Refuses to Budge
All men are the same in victory; it is defeat that etches character on a person’s face. “We took a shellacking,” Obama told the Whitehouse press corps at the first conference after an overwhelming defeat for Democrats saw 50 House seats; six Senate seats; and nine governorships slip from his party’s hands to the Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections. But this reporter saw only a “false humility and a lot of “personal expressions of feelings” revealed by the conference and not a single clear commitment to positive and needed change. It was quite clear that Obama is not interested in learning anything from the voters whose eloquence was far more powerful yesterday than any feigned contrition by their chief executive this afternoon . . . in a phrase: the president STILL DOESN’T GET IT.
Rajjpuut would like to congratulate the White House press corps which for the first time in the Obama presidency refused to serve up batting practice but instead sent a string of “hard ball” questions at the Commander-in-Chief. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama constantly insisted upon putting his own ball on a special tee and allowing himself several practice swings before dealing with the peripherary of the strong and honest questions he faced. Finally, the mainstream media showed some willingness to put Obama the man and Obama the president and Obamanomics (his policies) under a microscope. The headline writers have not been nearly so incisive as the reporters were in their questioning. Already 90% of them report that Obama has shown a “willingness to compromise.” Wanna bet?
Item: Obama still insisted upon lecturing America, his party and Republicans on the fine points of Das Kapital instead of taking to heart these far more terse, powerful and accurate lessons from the free market:
Item: Obama still danced around issues even when they were put squarely to him. Asked about business and jobs and spending and possible new directions, he unleashed a storm of platitudes and invoked the magic word “emergency” at least ten times during the talk. He had his excuse (emergency) and he never let Americans forget it.
Item: When reminded that he had told Republicans “Elections have consequences” after taking office and had NOT worked openly or transparently with the “other side of the aisle” so far during his presidency, Obama refused to admit that his policies or his direction so far could be anything close to misguided or GASP “wrong.”

Item: He talked in platitudes about business and the economy while consistently talking about green-energy and clean environment. He spoke of “natural gas” and “alternatives repeatedly but never once mentioned the words “coal” or “oil” or talked about electrical prices which is key . . . because Mr. Obama has said before his energy policies will “bankrupt the coal industry” and “electricity rates would necessarily sky-rocket." Yet here he was talking about energy in one form or another for perhaps 25% of the speech without once mentioning coal, oil or energy prices? If you, the reader, take nothing else from this blog: remember that simple straightforward honesty means simple straightforward talk not "beautiful words" and phrases spoken in appropriately reverent tones. Mr. Obama cannot be blunt because Mr. Obama cannot be honest about his goals for this country which are dramatically different from mainstream America's goals and the truth about this discrepancy would make mainstream America despise him . . . .

Obama never once seriously talked about businesses’ need for predictability or GASP profits. As a result he never connected needed jobs to needed profits and needed actions by government to cut taxes, cut spending and get out of the free market's way so those business profits could emerge naturally. He mentioned directly and obliquely the disproven idea of global warming as justification never once letting out that Europe as a whole has refuted the idea since the revelations of Climategate came to light. For example, much of the American press and intelligent American people are aware that even the ultra-liberal London Times admits that global warming is a hoax:

Mr. Obama, in Europe the climate-change “deniers” (like Rajjpuut) used to call global warming alarmists “mean-greenies,” but now much of the establishment in business and government in Europe calls them “watermelons” meaning “green on the outside and pink to Deep RED on the inside” because now only socialists and communists still push this 100% disproven effort at science while seeking the necessary 100% government control of business and industry that Cap and Trade requires . . . and yet you mentioned Cap and Trade positively twice in your “contrition speech” before opening up to questions.
Item: Just as he insisted six months ago that the main emphasis of NASA going forward was to “outreach to the Muslim world community” he still apparently believes that the main goal of business is to oppress people and dirty the environment and exploit the rest of the planet . . . absolutely nothing he said today would make any careful listener believe differently.
Item: When a direct question was put to him about his “car in the ditch analogy” where putting the car in R (for Republican or Reverse) was the wrong move and it needed to be put in D (for Democrat or Drive) . . . “Do you admit that your policies might have been taking the country in the wrong direction?” Obama grimaced and said “We’ve at least been pushing in the opposite directions,” a good-sounding answer but one which refuses to face up to the excellent question** he was asked.
Mr. Obama refuses to ever consider that anything he’s done could be fundamentally wrong, therefore HE CANNOT LEARN FROM HIS MISTAKES AND CANNOT GROW FROM HIS EXPERIENCE. Hopefully he is doomed to be a one-term president, because the answers to our problems and the decisions for our future cannot come from such a man. Some men are genuine in their effort to communicate and to be communicated with, while some are always pointing the conversation toward ulterior motives and superficial results (being unwilling to actually change) and though he tried to appear humbled and changed, Barack Obama is set on his course (because he knows best) and America be damned!
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
**The BIG TRUTH of the ditch analogy (what in propaganda science is called a “BIG LIE” is this:
George Bush saw Obama, ACORN and Clinton pushing the car (the economy) toward a 500 foot cliff (utter disaster), jumped in and grabbed the steering wheel and hit the brakes to coast it into the nearest friendly-looking ditch.
This shocking counter-analogy would be best proven with a full expose of the problems that caused the financial debacle running from the creation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy in 1966; through the deliberate bankrupting of New York City in 1975 by Cloward, Piven and NWRO leader George Wiley; the creation of the CRA ’77 by Washington and of ACORN in Arkansas both in 1977 with CRA laws forcing lenders to make knowingly bad loans; Bill Clinton’s executive expansion and his three legislative expansions <twice in ’95 and the steroid version in ‘98> of CRA laws . . . an explanation which six or seven pages could barely do justice to. Let it suffice to say . . . .
In January, 2005, (14 months after Rajjpuut had become aware of the serious nature of our housing industry bubble -- subprime lending crisis --- and derivatives bubble and been writing about it) George Bush noticed and acted immediately. His attempts to undo the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977’s most poisonous features were rebuffed by the Democrats. Mr. Bush personally or through other administration representatives talked to Congress at least another 18 times about the seriousness of this matter. Finally, in July, 2007 (30 months later) a bi-partisan very weak bill was passed. It, of course proved to be way too little, way too late and within three months the financial storm clouds were on us. However, Bush’s efforts had gotten us through the worst of the storm. In August, 2010, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner credited Bush’s actions from preventing a truly disastrous financial meltdown and ugly run on housing prices.
Read more…

“There are liars, damned liars and statisticians . . .” (old saying)

specifically quoted:

Obama Administration’s SEVERE

MISCOUNT of Stimulus jobs

Aims to Hide Sickening Truth

It’s considered unpatriotic by Mr. Obama to criticize him or his administration or their ineptness. If that’s so, you’re about to hear some truly unpatriotic blasphemy. Are you one of those Doubting Thomases very skeptical about the honesty of reported federal government statistics? The word on the street is that “figures don’t lie, but liars sure can figure.” Here’s a case in point, among all the “jobs created or saved by the Obama administration’s $787 Billion stimulus were 384 jobs created at Hormel’s Jennie-O Turkey Store in Willmar, Minnesota at a cost of $7,144,000 ( a mere $18,600 per job, fantastic by normal government standards). The summary of the grant reads this way: “production and delivery of small cooked deli breasts.” Sounds good. The turkey breasts in question are part of a $100 million package of grants received mainly for canned fruit, canned pork, and sliced ham for stocking food pantries across the nation.

OOOOps, one small problem: the 384 people hired eventually worked for less than 40 hours each. How many actual permanent jobs were created by this grant? ZERO! Cost per day for each of these jobs? $3,720. Are you still impressed? How much REAL money went into the pockets of Obama supporters for FAKE jobs on this one? Unfortunately, those statistics are not available . . . .

This is why virtually all federally released figures must be taken with a huge grain of salt by any intelligent voter. Weasel phrases akin to calling the neighborhood “pool parlor” a “Pocket Billiards Emporium” are the very stock in trade of federal liars like Barak Obama and all the people who surround him and support his efforts all the way right down to the sour-faced neighborhood bureaucrat. Do you remember back when Senator Obama was talking about creating five million new green-tech jobs as soon as he became president? If that was realistic and helpful, surely that’s where the bulk of the stimulus money should have gone, no? Well, Rajjpuut, and a whole hell of a lot of other bloggers around the country put the national media straight and that starry-eyed notion melted away like butter on a hot skillet bottom. Since the “green-tech” lie is a classic example of what we’re up against, it bears repeating . . . .

Admit it, it sounds terrific! Imagine five million new jobs in the green-tech industry helping get our nation off the oil bandwagon and all the pollution it produces. That was NICE. Now let’s face the facts . . . .

Up until about thirteen years ago, Spain was the top job creator among all nations in the European Union. Then they got the starry-eyed notion to pour money into "alternative energy," clean up the environment and create even more jobs via green tech. Sound familiar? One caveat for Mr. Obama, Spain's present unemployment rate at more than 20% is more than double the European Union average. Barak, of course doubles-down on green-tech, steadfastly refusing to let Americans drill off America's shoreline, in the country itself, or even to let Americans use new technologies to drill out old oil wells: all policies even the green-smitten Spaniards would call "absolutamente loco!"

So what do the stats tell us? The Spanish economy lost 2.2 jobs from the wider marketplace for every single green job created. That would mean Obama's program could cost America eleven million other jobs or a net loss of six million jobs, but wait . . . . Remember from our one-day turkey breast example, whenever liberal politicians "create" jobs they tend to count in "funny" sorts of ways, acting as if a one-week job and a permanent job were all the same thing. What happened in Spain was that ultimately only 10% of the green jobs they created were permanent jobs . . . ooooooops that means that instead of creating five million REAL JOBS, Obama will likely be creating five million bogus-counted funny-jobs in green tech that amount to only 500,000 real jobs-- so now we're looking at an overall loss of 10.5 million real jobs . . . that's 22 real jobs lost** by the subsidies needed to fund creation each single green-tech job, OUCH! Here’s a report from another heretic that Rajjpuut loves:

This info, from the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy, concludes that many green jobs pay low wages, require expensive taxpayer subsidies, and require killing existing jobs to subsidize these new green jobs. Of course, Missouri Senator Kit Bond author of that report Yellow Light on Green Jobs and subcommittee ranking member is a conservative Republican and he's surely regarded as "unpatriotic" by Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Obama too??? Senator Bond, by the way, is retiring by choice and will be sorely missed. And also, “sorely missed”? All those jobs created or saved by the Obama stimulus . . . . jobs that upon closer examination all POOF! Disappear into thin air.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,


** "How can this be?" you ask . . . . Government canNOT create jobs they can only redistribute wealth. Even creating apparent jobs in the military or the border patrol to carry out obvious and necessary government functions of protecting the nation comes at a cost of real jobs in the free market economy, it just so happens that almost all Americans agree those are worthy functions and don't begrudge the government the cost, but make no bones about it, there is a cost. World War II saw the "creation" of 16 million jobs and brought the Great Depression to an end because of that. What was the cost? Virtually all economic activity was diverted into the military sphere in one way or another and the entire country was under rationing beginning in the spring of 1942. Ordinary citizens found that certain foods were almost impossible to get and they cost much more than previously. Items like metals; gasoline and other fuels; tires and other rubber goods; a lot of food especially coffee, meats, butter, fats, cheese and oils; and even clothing such as nylons and shoes were rationed. In other words the citizens sacrificed greatly by government decree so the war effort could continue. Additionally, huge amounts of time and energy normally devoted to other activities by individuals and businesses was turned toward the war and the needs of the troops: scrap drives, huge drives for war bond sales, virtually all the normal activities of a nation at peace were foregone or dramatically reduced so the military could succeed. Besides the loss in people and in maimed individuals, the material wealth of the nation was greatly reduced, but it could have been far, far worse . . . imagine being a Japanese, Italian or German citizen and not only sacrificing so much, not only losing so many of your relatives, friends and neighbors, but also having your very homeland destroyed and so many of you killed in the process. War is not pretty and all the costs of it should always be understood before it's every embarked upon.

More reading desired?

Read more…