taxpayers (8)


Hillary Clinton has stated that of the 60,000 emails she exchanged as Secretary of State half or 30,000 were personal. Randall Sorensen, CPA decided to provide Hillary’s boss, the taxpayers with the estimated cost of her lost work productivity. Based on her salary and workplace statistics, Hillary’s emails cost taxpayers $125,000

Hillary Clinton’s private server will confirm for the FBI whether any classified information was inadvertently passed.  The server will also provide an exact timeline of her emails.  Randall Sorensen, CPA and Certified in Financial Forensics decided to determine how much Hillary’s personal emails cost American taxpayers.    

Mr. Sorensen reviewed Hillary’s tax returns for years 2009 through 2012 and found that as Secretary of State she was paid an average annual salary of $158,000.  Presidential candidate tax returns can be viewed at  Also, according to the CATO Institute the average federal worker receives an additional 42% in fringe benefits ($34,000 avg. ben/$81,000 avg. pay).  When you multiply her annual salary of $158,000 by 142%, Hillary’s annual cost to taxpayers was $224,000.

Next, Sorensen relied on the McKinsey Global Institute regarding the amount of time worker’s spend on emails. MGI’s research shows employees spend up to 28% of their day on emails.

Therefore, if you multiply Hillary’s annual wages and benefits of $224,000 times 28%, the effective cost to taxpayers for her to read and send emails was $62,700.  Since Hillary has stated that 50% (30,000 of 60,000) were personal we would need to multiply $62,700 by 50% for a net cost to her boss, the taxpayers, of $31,350.  Multiplying $31,350 times four years as Secretary you arrive at a rather staggering cost of cost of $125,000.

Mr. Sorensen said tongue in cheek, “imagine walking into your boss’s office tomorrow and announcing that you plan to prepare 30,000 personal emails over the next four years at a cost to the company of $125,000 and you expect them to pay for it”.   Before attempting this, Sorensen stated “I recommend that your boss have a good sense of humor to prevent your sudden unemployment”.

In summary, Hillary’s urgency to instantly contact a loved one or repairman is human nature. The content of Hillary’s personal emails isn’t any business of the rest of the world…..   except maybe when you’re the Secretary of State and your being compensated by hard working taxpayers. Hillary should be applauded for teaching us all a valuable lesson…….     emails can and will come back to bite you!

Read more…

Ten conservative organizations are protesting legislation designed to help one of the richest men in the world warning that it violates federalism, opens the door to regulation of the Internet and is an pure example of crony capitalism.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), have introduced legislation known as the Restoration of America’s Wire Act as a way to helping billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson stamp out competition coming from states that have legalized online gaming.  Adelson's minions have testified that the movement in the states will have devastating impact on Las Vegas and the Sands Corporation's bottom line.

Led by David Williams, the President of Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the letter to Congress notes that “TPA has many concerns with the Restoration of America’s Wire Act, which would essentially ban Internet gaming across the country,” said Williams. “This legislation goes too far by interjecting the federal government in what has traditionally been a state issue. Additionally, the legislation would not stop online gambling and would instead embolden criminals to prey on consumers in a black market that is typically operated abroad with little oversight. I encourage the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to stand strong against this gross overreach by the federal government.”  Williams concluded, “this legislation is also a backdoor attempt to regulate the Internet.

The complete letter sent to Congress reads as follows:

Dear Chairmen Goodlatte and Leahy, and Ranking Members Conyers and Grassley,

We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, are writing to express our deep concerns about
the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (H.R. 4301), which would institute a de facto ban on internet gaming in all 50 states. The legislation is a broad overreach by the federal government over matters traditionally reserved for the states. H.R. 4301 will reverse current law in many states and drastically increase the federal government’s regulatory power. As we have seen in the past, a ban will not stop online gambling. Prohibiting states from legalizing and regulating the practice only ensures that it will be pushed back into the shadows where crime can flourish with little oversight. In this black market, where virtually all sites are operated from abroad, consumers have little to no protection from predatory behavior.

Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that this bill allows the federal government to take a heavy hand in regulating the Internet, opening the door for increased Internet regulation in the future. By banning a select form of Internet commerce, the federal government is setting a troubling precedent and providing fodder to those who would like to see increased Internet regulation in the future. We fear that H.R. 4301 will begin a dangerous process of internet censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by calculated international infringers while constraining the actions of private individuals and companies in the United States.

H.R. 4301 also creates carve-outs that exempt certain special interests from the federal government’s reach. This amounts to the federal government picking winners and losers – choosing select industries or private-sector businesses to succeed at the expense of others, which is at odds with free-market competition.

In total, H.R. 4301 is an inappropriate and unnecessary use of federal powers that infringes on the rights of individuals and states. We applaud you for standing against this government overreach and preserving the principles of federalism and free-market competition that underscore American democracy.


Joe Jansen, Alliance for Freedom
Steve Pociask, President, American Consumer Institute
Michelle Minton, Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Matt Kibbe, President, FreedomWorks
Coley Jackson, President, Freedom Action
Carrie Lukas, Managing Director, Independent Women’s Forum
Andrew Langer, President, Institute for Liberty
Tom Giovanetti, President, Institute for Policy Innovation
Eli Lehrer, President, R Street Institute
David Williams, President, Taxpayer Protection Alliance

Read more…

4063756135?profile=originalNext February, we will celebrate the 5th anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). You know, President Obama's trillion-dollar spending spree that was sold to the American people as a means to save our economy from the brink of disaster and create American jobs. 

As the former-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in 2010, when she and her left-wing minions were forcing the Affordable Care Act on the American people, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

Quite the pathetic statement, however, it is eerily true for us American citizens, because we are either kept in the dark, lied to, or manipulated as to what our government is up to. And once any large piece of legislation is passed, time is what enables us to grasp its impact –– good or bad, corrupt or mismanaged –– and calculate the cost to us hard-working American taxpayers. History has already proven that our government has grown too large, too intrusive, and too expensive.  

To better understand this piece of the "green energy" scandal, let me remind my fellow Americans that President Obama promised to have, and claims to be, the most transparent administration in history. Yet here we are over fours yeas later with David Sanger, the New York Times reporter who has spent two decades reporting in Washington, slamming this theory by proclaiming that the Obama administration is the "most closed, control-freak administration" he's ever covered, reported POLITICO this month.
As if many of us didn't have that sentiment already, especially in the midst of a series of serious scandals that hit the White House this year. More so, when we learned that political appointees within the Obama administration, across several agencies, including the Energy Department, and recently the IRS, have been using secret or personal email accounts to conduct official government business. But secrecy is not the only thug tactic operating inside this administration: they have been known to intimidate inspector generals, as told by Gerald Walpin. "But I learned, through being fired by the Obama administration, that performing one’s responsibilities as one should, and potentially adversely affecting the administration’s image, is not the way to keep one’s job," Walpin wrote this past June.

This brings me to today's Green Corruption File, "The RAT in the Recovery and the Gang of Ten," which is the underbelly of this scandal. First is the deception: other than the overall "save the planet" manipulation, Americans were misled as to the real purpose of the stimulus package. Secondly, the Obama administration's "RAT maneuver" (and those behind it) leaves us with speculation (some will say proof) of premeditation and intention in regards to potential shenanigans with the stimulus funds. Last but not least, the "ten green stimulus authors" (yet there could be more) that I have uncovered and will expand upon in the third section of this post, were allowed to ensure that their "green" interests were represented in the stimulus bill, thus cashing in at the tune of tens of billions of tax dollars.

The RAT in the Recovery

What most don't know, not even the majority of Congress, is that there was a RAT hidden deep inside the 1,073-page stimulus bill, which was drafted by the Obama transition team and congressional aides.

Entitled the Obama-Biden Transition Project, it employed approximately 400 people and it was comprised of Obama bundlers and campaign contributors as well as lobbyist and those that operate inside Washington’s egregious revolving door. In the mix was a squadron of Center for American Progress (CAP) experts, the billionaire George Soros-funded liberal think tank. Within this transition group, we also find many that eventually operated inside this clean-energy scheme, of which I'll highlight later.

"From the first debates over the stimulus bill, the White House has promised unprecedented levels of transparency and accountability," noted U.S. News in 2009, even appointing Vice President Joe Biden as the nation’s stimulus spending cop, Stimulus Sheriff Joe, who ultimately went MIA.

Quite the contrary, and it all started when Team Obama starting planning their trillion-dollar spending spree, because “deep inside” the 2009 Recovery Act was a RAT, an attempt to suppress potential investigations, and only a few news outlets caught it in February of 2009: the Washington Post and the Washington Examiner.
As legislation was moving at rapid speed, and Congress continually failed to read the bills, the Obama administration had placed a “far-reaching and potentially dangerous provision." The creation of the RAT Board (Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board) was supposed to be “an oversight panel headed by a White House nominee.” 

The controversial provision emerged in a January 2009 draft of the bill prepared by Obama's transition team officials and members of the House Appropriations Committee, of which at that time it was labeled by the White House as “critical to prevent waste and corruption.” This RAT board gave them the authority to ask, “That an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.”
Did you get that? An Obama appointee could dictate what to investigate and what investigations they wanted to squash. 

According to The Examiner...
When Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a longtime champion of inspectors general, read the words “conduct or refrain from conducting,” alarm bells went off. The language means that the board — whose chairman will be appointed by the president — can reach deep inside a federal agency and tell an inspector general to lay off some particularly sensitive subject. Or, conversely, it can tell the inspector general to go after a tempting political target. …”
Senator Grassley (Republican from Iowa), also warned, "This is a dangerous provision that will hamper oversight, restrict transparency, and damage the independence of inspectors general."

Subsequent concerns arose, with Senator Claire McCaskill (Democrat from Missouri), who was alarmed by the sentence that allowed "the panel to order an inspector general to stop an investigation." As reported by The Post in February 2009...
The group representing federal inspectors general recommended that the entire disputed provision be deleted from the legislation, according to David R. Gray, counsel to Phyllis K. Fong, chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 
Senate negotiators changed the board composition. While the president would appoint the head of the panel, the rest of the members would be inspectors general. 
House and Senate negotiators also added a line proposed by McCaskill saying that the final decision on whether to proceed is up to the inspector general. "The language sends a very clear message that the IG is in the driver's seat," she said.

As you can see, eventually lawmakers revised the original bill, and allowed “the watchdog agencies to reject the panel's decisions.” But only after they were BUSTED, leaving many wondering why another layer of bureaucracy? Worse, why would a panel be given that kind or power in the first place, power that was not entirely stripped away.

At that time, they named the former Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney, who helped uncover the Jack Abramoff scandal, as the head. Yep, we got a Stimulus Czar, and more taxpayer money going out the door: "The bill allotted about $350 million in oversight measures, including $84 million for the creation of an oversight board," as documented by U.S. News. Mr. Devaney has since retired, and in December 2011, President Obama appointed Kathleen S. TIghe Chair of the Board, with eleven Inspectors General from various federal agencies that serve with her. 

Moreover, “Per the Recovery Act, the Board's Recovery activities were supposed to end on September 30, 2013. However, in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 to assist states and individuals impacted by Hurricane Sandy, Congress stipulated the Board provide oversight of the funding through 2015.”

The irony here is that the RAT Board's stated goals are “to provide transparency of Recovery-related funds and “to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and mismanagement.” While I can't speak for the entire stimulus bill, I know that tucked inside was $100 billion that Team Obama carved out for their big clean-energy push (save the planet funds). Money that I have been following since 2010, which has not only led to plenty of fraud, waste, and mismanagement, but also abuse, cronyism, corruption, and failure.

Most critically is that this “RAT” maneuver only leaves speculation of premeditation and intention in regards to potential shenanigans (an understatement) with the stimulus funds, and the daunting question, what has the RAT Board done about the massive pile of clean-energy dirt? 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 
& Its $100 billion renewable energy earmark 

Shortly after President Obama began his reign as our 44th president, in February 2009, he signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This was a massive economic stimulus bill –– among the biggest in history –– that was sold to the American people as a means save our economy from the brink of disaster and create American jobs.  

By the beginning of 2012, revelations revealed the real intent behind Obama's trillion-dollar spending spree ("walking around money"): it was “a key tool for advancing the Obama administration’s clean-energy goals and fulfilling a number of campaign commitments.” In fact, the 2009-Stimulus package was jammed-packed full of clean-energy provisions, of which about 10 percent of the monies were earmarked for renewable energy. 

It's important to point out that the $100 billion in stimulus funds is not the only money being used to fuel the Obama administration's efforts to save the planet using other people's money.  I'd say it's closer to $150 billion to date, and counting, because they continue to dish out more. In short, other departments handing out "green" include the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Biorefinery Assistance Program, and we even find that there is a "Green War" being waged: "the Department of Defense has launched more green energy initiatives than any other federal agency and many are duplicative and wasteful," as reported by the Washington Free Beacon.
Another means where huge corporations and Obama's "green" pals get taxpayer money is through the taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), who "has a Congressional mandate to support renewable energy and has been directed that 10% of its authorizations should be dedicated to renewable energy and environmentally beneficial transactions."

Additionally, the president's new Climate Action Plan, announced in July of this year, calls for releasing "$8 billion in loan guarantees for advanced fossil fuel and efficiency projects, and strengthen the Better Building Challenge to increase building efficiency 20 percent by 2020." Meanwhile, the "Obama administration is ready to restart the controversial automotive loan program designed to kick-start the development of alternative vehicles." This is the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program that holds authority to award up to $25 billion in direct loans. 
Last fall, I chronicled how there were over 100 applicants for this section of the DOE's loan program, yet only the "FAVORED FIVE" were granted ATVM loans totaling $8.4 billion. Three of the five loans are directly tied to President Obama and the other two, both Ford Motor Co. and Nissan, were heavily engaged in negotiations with the administration over fuel economy standards for model years 2012- 2016 at the time DOE was considering their applications."
The ATVM is part of the Energy Department’s Loan Guarantee Program (DOE LGP) which has been a main focus throughout my work since April 2012. This is a program that consists of three separate entities: Section 1703Section 1705, and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM), and has thus far guaranteed $34.7 billion of taxpayer money. Both Section 1703 and the ATVM programs were established during the Bush administration, and Section 1705 was created by the 2009-Recovery Act.

This is the same Energy Department program which the Green Corruption Files has exposed over and over how at least 90 percent of the winners have meaningful politically connections (bundlers, top donors, fundraisers, etc) to the president and other high-ranking Democrats –– in many cases, to both. It also brought you big alternative energy losers such as Solyndra, Beacon Power, Abound Solar, Vehicle Production Group, SoloPower, Nevada Geothermal, and Fisker Automotive, flushing billions of tax dollars down the toilet. Yet there are billions more still at risk, and we're keeping an eye on these DOE projects: AREVA and its $2 billion, Georgia Power Company and its $8.33 billion, NRG Energy, Inc. (BrightSource) and its $1.6 billion, First Solar and its $3 billion, and others.

Still, the Energy Department's loan program is not the only place where we find taxpayer-funded clean-energy losers. At the end of 2012, I calculated that "as many as 50 Obama-backed green energy companies were bankrupt or troubled." In May I revisited this area, with my new numbers reflecting that 25 are bankrupt, and there are four about to go under. Then, if we keep those that were having issues the same (at 29), the latest taxpayer-funded clean-energy failure list is about 60 –– with almost half bankrupt. Stay tuned for a new investigative report on this topic in the near future. 
Continue reading "The RAT in the Recovery and the Gang of Ten" at The Green Corruption Files...
Read more…

4063694634?profile=originalSPECIAL NOTE: This was first published at as
"On Earth Day, Let's Waste More Money," and at the Heartland Institute on April 24, 2013, by Marita Noon –– my cohort in exposing President Obama's clean-energy dirt. However, considering additional taxpayer-funded green energy issues have emerged, I'll make be some adjustments as well as updates.

Following Ms. Noon's column I'll be amending our 2012 list of taxpayer-funded green energy failures, of which at that time I had documented 52 (23 bankrupt and 29 troubled) ––  at least $15 billion of green taxpayer money either gone or at risk. With additional research, by the summer of 2013, we may hit a new total of 60, marking the billions burned on Obama's green energy agenda as outrageous! 

                 Americans Bothered By the Way the Government Spends Taxes

Every year, April 15 is tax day, and that day has come and gone –– with most Americans feeling the sting. A while ago, the morning’s news shows featured last minute tax tips and other tax-related information. In case you missed the new poll that was discussed... When asked: “Thinking about paying taxes, which one of the following bothers you the most?” Surprisingly, “What you pay” received the lowest response, while the “Way the government spends taxes” was the highest. “Feeling that some don’t pay fair share” was near the top and “Complexity of system and forms” was near the bottom.” So people understand that it takes money to run the government and generally don’t object to paying their taxes. It is what the government does with that money that frustrates us.

When asked about the way government spends taxes, responders were likely thinking of the green-energy crony-corruption spending on flawed ventures like Solyndra and the, now, fifty-plus other green-energy embarrassments that received taxpayer dollars as a result of President Obama’s 2009 Stimulus Bill (as well as other green-energy funds) that poured nearly $100 billion into the pet projects of his donors.

Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in September 2011. It was just the bellwether; the first of many to come.

A year later Christine Lakatos and I profiled nearly 20 green-energy stimulus-funded companies that had gone bankrupt. The next week, we highlighted the other bookend: “companies/projects that received funding from various loan guarantee programs (LGP), grants, and tax incentives. These are projects that are still functioning, but are facing difficulties.” One of those troubled companies was A123 Systems. One week after our report, A123 filed for bankruptcy. Nearly two months later, A123 waspurchased by a large Chinese auto parts maker that has renamed the lithium-ion battery company B456.

Update: A123/B456’s biggest customer is another company on our troubled list: Fisker Automotive—manufacturer of the $100,000+ electric sports car made in Finland—is now facing bankruptcy itself after efforts to find a Chinese investor “stalled.” And we covered the April 24, 2013 Congressional Hearing: Failing Fisker Auto Finally Faces House Oversight Hearing: Chairman Jordan Exposes Another DOE Junk Loan, Declares, "Fisker should have never received taxpayer money”

Wait. In his 2008 campaign, didn’t Obama promise to “create five million new energy jobs over the next decade––jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced”? But our taxpayer dollars created jobs in Finland and have benefited a Chinese company—Obamanomics outsourced. No wonder the “way the government spends taxes” tops the list. And most have no idea that the Obama administration is responsible for steering billions of our tax dollars from the stimulus and other clean energy programs to foreign-owned entities, of which big chunk was doled out in the form of free cash via the 1603 stimulus grant program.

But there’s more—new news the poll respondents probably didn’t even know about.

One day after the poll was taken, CNN Money reports: “China’s Suntech Power has put its largest subsidiary into bankruptcy.” What they don’t mention is that China’s Suntech Power benefited from Obama’s 2009 Stimulus Bill—receiving a $2.1 million credit from the Energy Department’s stimulus-funded Advanced Energy Manufacturing (48C) Tax Credit. (Suntech was included in our 2012 “troubled” list.) In her blog, The Green Corruption Files, Lakatos states: “according to the Heritage Foundation, in November 2012, Suntech shed some employees, claiming that it was the ‘U.S. International Trade Commission’s 35.95% tariff on Chinese solar panels that was partially responsible for the 50 impending layoffs at its Arizona production facilities.’” Suntech was even blamed for the Solyndra debacle. In December 2011, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported: “China’s major solar panel companies—whose low-cost products led some American factories to close, helped create the Solyndra controversy, and spawned talk of a trade war—were bankrolled in the United States by the world’s largest investment banks.” Those “investment banks” include some the same ones we have profiled in our previous reports that have deep ties to the Obama campaign and administration, and many green-energy projects that received loans, grants, and special tax breaks representing billions in stimulus money.

Suntech has more interconnections. Arizona’s Mesquite Solar Project, which received $337 million in taxpayer money despite its non-investment grade rating by Fitch, was to be built with Suntech’s solar panels and the power was to be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric—which has strong political presence in Washington, DC, and connections to billions in stimulus funds. California’s PG&E, a company with “an extensive network of former high-ranking employees holding influential positions in government agencies at the federal and state level, has benefited handsomely from government financing of green energy projects.” The most controversial former PG&E employee to hold an influential government post is Cathy Zoi, a former energy analyst for the company, who we profiled in our report on George Soros.

There is much more that can be found in Lakatos' Suntech report.

Another sparsely reported solar-power embarrassment was covered by Fox News on the same day the aforementioned poll was taken. “SoloPower, which makes thin-film solar panels at a new plant in Portland, OR, opened September 27 with an upbeat ribbon-cutting ceremony. Local and state politicians gushed about the company eventually operating four production lines and creating 450 well-paid green jobs.” After its grand opening just months ago, SoloPower’s power is waning: “The first production line was never completed,” and “in January, the company had a round of layoffs.”

This is not a surprise to those of us who watch the green-energy crony-corruption scandal. SoloPower was one of the worst-rated loans. One month before it received a $197 million loan guarantee to “support the retrofit of an existing building to operate a thin-film solar panel manufacturing facility in Portland, OR,” Standard and Poors (S&P) gave SoloPower a credit rating of CCC+.

As uncovered and exposed by Lakatos on April 1st regarding SoloPower, the March 2012, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report titled “The Department of Energy’s Disastrous Management of Loan Guarantee Programs” which states: “S&P predicted that SoloPower will fail to meet its debt obligations.” DOE emails, released on October 31, 2012, reveal that James McCrea, Senior Credit Advisor at the Loan Programs Office, called SoloPower “a completely uninspiring project.”

Yet, in addition to the $197 million of US taxpayer money SoloPower was given from the DOE through the 1705 LGP, this European firm also received $40 million from Oregon taxpayers. Then in December 2012, “despite unfulfilled job and production promises and signs the Portland solar panel factory was sliding even further behind,” Oregon officials tripled the “taxpayer’s stake,” said the OregonianBusiness Oregon approved a $20 million tax credit for SoloPower—which SoloPower then exchanged for $13.5 million in cash. After a management shake-up, Fox News reports, SoloPower is “trying to raise money by selling some of its equipment through a third party and is attempting to restructure its $197 million federal loan guarantee.”

Update: On April 22, the Oregonian’s headline read: “SoloPower moves to power down Portland factory, gut remaining workforce.”

With the bad credit rating, the “uninspiring” label, and poor performance, why did SoloPower receive federal, state, and city funding—ultimately paid by the taxpayers? Because as the Oversight Committee report states: “What SoloPower lacked in economic value, it made up for in political connections.”

Suntech and SoloPower are just two recent stories; part of a long list of bankrupt and/or “troubled” politically connected green-energy projects.

When President Obama released his FY2014 budget, it included new spending of nearly $1 billion “to support deployment and long-term development in the clean energy industries.” Renewable Energy World appears gleeful. “It’s been said before and it bears repeating that Obama has done more for solar than any previous US President.” And: “The support of the federal government has led to an explosion in the amount of solar across America.” Do you think?

In contrast, Tom Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, pointed out that the budget “represents the administration’s desire to double down on bad energy policy.” And, “calls for fast-track permitting for renewables” while never mentioning the Keystone pipeline. Pyle concludes his comments by saying: the President “hopes that the American people will forget the failures of the past four years, higher gasoline prices, skyrocketing electricity rates, bankrupt renewable firms, and billions in wasted taxpayer money on politically connected industries.”

No wonder the “way the government spends taxes” tops the list of taxpayer’s frustrations. Perhaps if “government’s inability to learn from its mistakes” had been on the list, it would have been the number one choice.

                                             OBAMA'S GREEN ENERGY BANKRUPTCIES
                                                               as of May 2013 

Our 2012 Green Alert: taxpayer-funded green energy failures list placed the total at 52 –– 23 bankrupt and 29 troubled, with at least $15 billion of "green" taxpayer money either gone or at risk.
Today I will only be updating our green energy taxpayer-backed bankrupt list, and over the summer I'll be evaluating the 29 projects or firms, which I had documented as having issues: financial, project delays, environmental, corruption probes, and otherwise. This will ensure that we give an honest assessment, tally and dollar amount. But at this point in time, while I can remove a few –– some into the bankrupt column, others are doing worse, and some are doing better –– there are more to add.

We can now remove Suntech out of the troubled category and place them in our bankrupt list. Meanwhile we can't officially add SoloPower and Fisker to our bankrupt list, but we've moved them to our new category: "On the Verge of Going Bust and Bailouts," which includes taxpayer-funded companies that were financially struggling to stay alive, and eventually got "bailed out" (the majority by foreign companies).
Then there is the story of how "America's most storied Fortune 500 corporation, Honeywell, "created a mere 10 jobs with a $25 million grant (to be used by Honeywell's UOP subsidiary to build a biofuels technology demonstration plant in Oahu, Hawaii) under President Obama's economic stimulus program in 2010" –– a cost of $2.5 million per job. And why is the DOE "withholding records on a Wyoming carbon-capture project that snagged almost $10 million in economic stimulus grants from the DOE?" It's undergoing a legal investigation.

Additionally, we can give more data on my list of taxpayer-backed green energy companies that were in distress. One in particular is Bloom Energy, which I had reported received $5 million in taxpayer money, but it was more like $70 million in federal grants and $200 million in funding from the state of California. It turns out that in February of this year, they were "fined for illegally paying employees in pesos."

While GM's Chevy Volt, "the poster child for President Obama's push to electrify America's auto fleet," is still suffering from a poor performance, there is a more positive case to share. This past February, Telsa Motors made an encouraging announcement at an event, "Tesla will pay off our Department of Energy (DOE) loan five years early, twice as fast as required by the original 2010 loan agreement signed by Tesla and the DOE."

This came despite reports that have painted a different scenario and grim future for Telsa. In October 10, 2012: The DOE restructured its loan to Tesla and in December 20, 2012, Market Watch reported, "Tesla will need more loans to stay afloat in 2013." As of late, Forbes noted another key issue; "The problem with putting $465 million of taxpayer money at risk to back Tesla is that producing this particular toy for the rich does absolutely nothing to further the ostensible goals of the program, which are fighting climate change and achieving energy security."

We'll give Telsa the luxury of removing them from our troubled category, but they'll stay on our radar –– after all this is Steve Westly's investment, the Energy Department's buddy, and Obama's "Green bundler with the golden touch." So it shouldn't be too difficult to track.

Our new numbers as of May of 2013 reflect 25 bankrupt, three about to go under, and if we keep those that are having issues the same (at 29), then by the time I complete my new investigative report, the latest taxpayer-funded green energy failure list could hit 60 –– with almost half bust.

What a difference six months makes...

If you are one of those Americans "bothered" by the way our government spends your taxes, then you may want continue reading this post. You'll be able to view the documented details of President Obama's billions in green energy failures, which includes more bankruptcies, billions going overseas, the green jobs gimmicks and expense, plus much more –– visit the Green Corruption Files.
Read more…



“The highly probable upcoming caving-in by the House Republicans and their even less forthright Senate Republican companions smacks of a huge betrayal (by the ‘party of small government’) of the American people. Despite the Obama budget’s 0-97 defeat in the Democrat-controlled Senate all his posturing today on the debt ceiling is taken up by the liberal media as Gospel Truth and as serious efforts at dealing with the nation’s problems . . . they are neither. Yes, Republicans, you need to call his bluff! His own party has already shown by that 0-97 vote that they have taken his measure and realize his presidency is a 100% joke.”

 "Has John Boehner got the testicles to go with the tears?"
Government by Socialist-Elite in the Offing?
          Imagine that the Great Government Boondoggle-goddd in the Sky** suddenly dropped $13.5 TRillion in Gold bullion onto the Whitehouse lawn. Applied to the National Debt, all but a measly $1 Trillion would be scrubbed clean. Rajjpuut ventures to say that this visitation by the goddds would be absolutely the worst thing that could ever happen to the United States of America. This, my friends, whether you recognize it or not, is the moment in which the United States decides upon its viability for the next century.  Unwanted interference by the goddds no matter how beneficent it might appear can only destroy this crucial moment when men must decide upon their values and how those values are reflected in our government. These are the crucial issues being decided NOW:
A.    Is the U.S. Constitution a worthy document?
B.    Is small government protecting the people’s freedoms relevant nowadays?
C.    Are America’s citizens going to be held accountable for their own survival and prosperity or will 98% of that role forever be the province of nanny-state government eliminating our freedom in exchange for burping us and cleaning our diapers?
D.   Are free markets worth protecting?
E.    Is socialism a better economic system than capitalism?
F.    Are the people we elected in 2010 to cut spending, create jobs and begin restoring our nation’s glory going to sell us out, this week?
G.   Has John Boehner got the testicles to go with the tears?
Economist Milton Friedman once summed up all government irresponsibility this way: “To spend is to tax.” The highly probable upcoming caving-in by the House Republicans and their even less forthright Senate Republican companions smacks of a huge betrayal (by the “party of small government”) of the American people. Despite the Obama budget’s 0-97 defeat in the Democrat-controlled Senate all his posturing today on the debt ceiling is taken up by the liberal media as Gospel Truth and as serious efforts at dealing with the nation’s problems . . . they are neither. Yes, Republicans, you need to call his bluff! His own party has already shown by that 0-97 vote that they have taken his measure and realize his presidency is a 100% joke.
The President and his Democrats have let it be known that social security checks and checks for our troops might not be sent out if the present debt-ceiling is not raised and that a default is in the offing. The Republican Party leaders in the House and the Senate need to stand tough and get this message out: If the country defaults upon its debts, it is because Barack Obama chooses to default. If Social Security checks are not sent out, it is because Barack Obama chooses NOT to send them. If our military, engaged now in three separate wars, is not paid, it is because Barack Obama chooses NOT to pay them. And if the debt-ceiling is not raised and if foolish government spending is not cut significantly it is because Barack Obama chooses NOT to deal with these problems. 
Let’s force Barack Obama to decide what’s important and what’s not and let’s allow the American people to examine his priorities. He has not submitted one written proposal since his asinine budget was defeated 0-97 all he’s done is demagogue unfairly those who’ve submitted reasonable and serious proposals to eliminate our crises. If our credit rating is down-graded from AAA to AA which seems inevitable now, then it’s very likely that unless Obama chooses wisely following a failure to legislate an increase in the national debt . . . that the resulting chaos would further lower our credit rating and doom his presidency. Obama is all show and no go. All speeches and no statesmanship. He knows NOT how to govern. The only sure way to save this country is to call his bluff and force him to either accept a wise Republican bill or to be forced to govern – the one thing he fears the most.  Doug Powers recently blogged that despite the Pro-Obama hype from the media, the President is definitely not shrewd nor a statesman. “He’s somewhere between evil and incompetent . . . . Hopefully Social Security recipients are familiar with chess, because they’re now officially pawns in the president’s debt-ceiling game . . . . Let Obama demonstrate the choices he would make when forced to choose, I believe he will fall on his sword.” Well said, Doug!
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
** Of course, in truth the Great Government Boondoggle goddd is far more like a Mafioso organization which charges us outrageous protection fees every day of our lives.   In addition the credit card purchases and loans and mortgages they take out in your name are money borrowed from us which WE will in good time be required to pay back to them. The 100 million taxpayers in this country (the top 1% of taxpayers earning a minimum of $400,000 pay more than the bottom 97% and, while it does no justice to call them “taxpayers,” 51% or roughly 102 million pay ZERO taxes) must average $145,000 in taxes to pay off the $14.5 TRillion national debt. Of course there’s also the UNfunded liabilities like welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and the federal side of Medicaid which must be considered which amounts to another $98 TRillion that the productive part of society must pay for: which comes to another 980,000 we taxpayers must ante up   . . . or $1,125,000 owed by each taxpayer. Since the bottom-rated tax payers makes only a bit more than $34,000 . . . the enormity of the situation is obvious. The government’s credit card must be cut up into little pieces then burned and then the ashes must be vaporized.  As Grover Norquist once said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." 
Read more…


          “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
“If, after I depart this vale of tears, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at a homely girl.”
“I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.”  
All three quotes from H.L. Mencken
Educating the American Voter about Economics
            When it comes to economics, politics and your tax burden, ignorance is definitely NOT bliss. The “Great Cynic,” H.L. Mencken, spent a lot of time talking about “Boobus Americanus,” that poor sucker better known as the American Taxpayer and Voter. Why was Mencken so negative about the common American? A recent survey found that 38% of Americans think that “Cash for Clunkers” (CFC) was a great idea. Among the 43% of Americans who say CFC was definitely a bad idea, only about one in ten of these “doubters” can rationally explain why** CFC was a mistake.
            This is clearly NOT the time to be ignorant about economics and politics. Our nation needs far more educated and aware citizens to get involved in fiscally- and Constitutionally-conservative interventions in the political process, not to mentioned informed voting. 
Rajjpuut highly recommends that the voter/taxpayer who feels the need to self-educate on economics look over these brief (4-7 minutes each) videos, etc. As far as educating yourself to the dangers we face HERE and NOW . . . the best education may be these simple words, from a source unexpected by most Americans:
            Here’s your Rajjpuut-recommended self-education program. Look over each video or other link below -- just one per day, but view it twice back-to-back. In a very short time you will know more about economics than 95% of all Americans do. You will also be roughly five times more expert on the subject than the average member of congress has been since 1913 when they voted to give us both the Federal Reserve Bank and the Income Tax.
Happy homework . . . after the process works for you, let others know . . . .
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
**  Why Cash for Clunkers (CFC) was a bad idea:
A.     You can NOT create prosperity by destruction as the famous “Broken Window Parable” illustrates 
B.     A whole generation of used cars was destroyed before their times. As a consequence today the price of the average used car is between $1,800 and $1,900 more expensive than it was before CFC . . . dramatically hurting those most in need of a good used car, the lower- and lower-middle-classes.
C.      The auto sales charts prove that the CFC program created only a temporary “spike” in car sales which returned to the normal non-descript charted path as soon as the program was ended . . . but, meanwhile all that money that otherwise would have gone to ten thousand other places was concentrated upon the auto industry hurting the rest of the economy. The consumers’ money was merely diverted from those ten thousand places in the economy to one specific industry, auto manufacturing, the consumers’/voters’/taxpayers’ money meanwhile must, of necessity pay for this sooner or later.
D.     The government did not have the money it gave away. It had to borrow that money and thus increase the deficit and national debt all of which further dampens the economy and even threatens economic destruction.
E.     The pollution created in making a new lower-pollution car ahead of its time is far worse than letting the normal wear-down over the lifetime of the destroyed “clunkers” go on naturally.
F.      When you take into account the manufacturing process, hybrid cars are actually much worse environmentally than the older generation of cars. Lithium batteries and nickel use is among the most ravaging thing you can do to the environment.
G.     Lies told about the “success” of Cash for Clunkers will inspire more contra-productive government programs along the same lines. Notice that we still have the ethanol program which actually hurts the environment more (all sorts of hidden transportation pollution is involved) and costs the taxpayers far more than plain old gas does.
Read more…


Politicians Need to Listen

to the Voters NOW!


      Despite adding hundreds of billions of dollars in spending laws and Obamacare (a massive new entitlement program) in 2010, Nancy Pelosi’s Democrat-controlled House of Representatives didn’t bother to pass a budget last year.  Now Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, another Democrat, have decided that despite the results of November’s election, the only budget concerns that matter today (spend, spend, spend!) are theirs.   Taxpaying voters, meanwhile according to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey say, “A pox on both of your houses, shut down the government, until agreement on substantial CUTS*** is reached.” 

      While the two parties haggle, 58% of voters would rather see a partial shutdown of the federal government rather than maintaining spending at current levels ($3.7 TRillion in the Obama budget) according to the ever accurate Rasmussen Reports. Only 33% of likely voters told Rasmussen they’d prefer to see government spending continue at present levels rather than shutting down the government.   Opinions fell upon partisan lines with 58% of Democrats opting for maintaining spending levels; contradicted by 80% of Republicans and 59% of Independents who thought partial shutdown until agreement on cuts was the better idea. Overall just 6% of voters support more spending while 61% say cuts are in order. 

      The public seems more clear-thinking on fiscal matters than our elected representatives according to numerous Rasmussen polls. The majority of voters for years have said that cutting taxes and reducing government spending are best for the economy.   Of all Mr. Obama’s promises casually-made and super-casually-unfulfilled, voters have consistently rated “cutting the federal deficit by half  by the end of his first term” as the most important promise that nominee Obama made. Today survey after survey confirms that few voters expect he’ll keep it.  

      Mr. Obama’s present $3.7 TRillion budget will see government spending increased taking it over $4 TRillion very soon unless some drastic cuts and changes to the Washington modus operandi are quickly made. Who’s going to make the hard decisions?   70% of voters believe that the voting public is more willing to make the hard choices necessary to reduce federal spending than our politicians are.   66% of polled voters say that the Democratic Party is NOT interested in cutting spending; and 49% say Republicans don’t go far enough with the spending cuts they’re seeking. These voter opinions on government spending have held very consistent since late 2005. The survey-meister himself, Scott Rasmussen observed in his 2010 book In Search of Self-Governance that . . . .


                     "The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians(and power brokers) who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century." Rasmussen added that “The American people don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves.”



Ya’all live long, strong and ornery

*** NOTE:  just before this blog was completed, two huge stories popped up 1)  the House had just overwhelmingly agreed upon $4 Billion in spending cuts with 104 Democratic Reps siding with Speaker John Boehner as part of a CR (continuing resolution) to fund the federal government for two more weeks.  $2 Billion in cuts per week is a good but not great precedent.  Every time a new CR is created a $2 or $3 Billion cut per week of extension would be a phenomenal idea.  2) The General Accounting Office, one of the few government oversight agencies worth its salt, announced that in reviewing  some (but not all) the discretionary budget they found between $200-$250 Billion in overlap, duplication of services and conflict between U.S. government agencies.  For example fifteen different agencies look at food safety; ninety-two different agencies are assigned to educational improvement; etc.    One shudders in ecstasy to think how much more the GAO might find a) in the discretionary budgets and then b) in the entitlements and defense spending
Read more…

Obama, Lame Duck Semi-Conservatives

Sabotaged Nation



            America is now standing at the critical crossroads of fiscal- and Constitutional-destruction brought about by over a century of progressive (we must “progress” beyond the outdated and ill-conceived Constitution if we are to make “progress” toward our Socialist-Marxist utopia on earth) politics. This foolish progressivism has created a severe insolvency fiasco both in the states and the federal government created by 109 years of overstepping the Constitution. Right now the problem seems to be assaulting our states more severely because the federal government has shown itself willing to impoverish the people and the states by destroying the American Dollar, a resource thankfully not available to the individual states.  How did we get to this sad situation? It all began with the compromises of the 2010 Lame Duck Congressional Session.


           The most sensational sites for this national progressive shipwreck, besides Washington, D.C. itself, are found in a dozen moderate to high profile states. The strikes and nonsense now playing out in Wisconsin are likely to soon see ugly sequels in California, Illinois, Arizona, Nevada and even perhaps in Florida, Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan. Meanwhile two other states in very bad fiscal condition (New York and New Jersey) appear to have a great chance of avoiding Wisconsin’s fate because their two governors (Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie, respectively) have shown immense backbone and common sense in attacking their state’s debt crisis head on and their state legislative bodies have largely kept out of their chief executives’ way; not so in Wisconsin where the entire Democratic senate had refused to come to work and is now hiding out in Illinois.   How did we get to this sad situation? It all began with the compromises of the 2010 Lame Duck Congressional Session.

           The situation in the nation stood dramatically better on election eve, 2010 than it stood on New Year’s Eve 2010-2011. The deterioration of the prognosis owes itself to the idiocy of the semi-conservative Republicans holding forth in the 2010 Lame Duck session who caved into President Obama’s demands on virtually all fronts instead of standing strong and letting the newly-elected representatives and senators deal with Mr. Obama’s foolishness in 2011. At that time Mr. Obama’s “strong”-approval rating showed a minus -18 percentage points, while today in many polls the overall (mild + strong approval and disapproval ratings) ratings show President Obama has climbed from 41% overall approval and 56% overall disapproval (a -15% overall rating) to showing him at +2% (51% to 49%) a dramatic increase in the president’s perceived competence after Republicans compromised with the President’s agenda.

           It’s to be hoped that House Speaker John Boehner and his chief lieutenants Ryan, Simpson and Cantor and their House Republican colleagues . . . learned volumes from the failures of Newt Gingrich dealing with the clever Bill Clinton and of the recent 2010 Lame Duckers in facing Obama. But just in case they haven’t, here are the lessons they should learn:

1.       DO NOT compromise on principles. Make a stand for statesmanship.

2.     Do NOT compromise on the Constitution: follow your promises from the 2010 Republican “Pledge to America” 100% to the letter.

3.     Do NOT compromise on taxes, spending, deficits, borrowing, the national debt or the entitlement mess. Save our country.

4.     Do NOT compromise with our Marxist president on any single thing. He wished to gain re-election. He can only do that IF he appears to American voters as a reasonable and center-dwelling politician. Make the Marxist skunk show his stripes.

5.     HOW does the G.O.P. save this country?


           By never giving in and fighting the president tooth-and-nail at every step of the way, that’s how. Specifically: don’t swing for the fences, make solid contact on every ball and be content with walks and singles.   If baseball is NOT your cup of tea, look at things this way, the battle before them is a marathon not a sprint . . . because every easily-gained compromise makes Barack Obama look reasonable and statesmanlike. Every grudging compromise by Obama shows his true ultra-socialist colors plainly for the entire country to see.

            The G.O.P. was elected by landslide numbers across the country to stand up to the president and his apocalyptic philosophy of spending, taxes government interference and unfettered government growth. They must do what they were elected to do . . . bring sanity back to Washington. Sanity without the presidency or the senate means only one thing: deadlock. If the issues that doomed Democrats to wide scale defeat in 2010 are still foremost in the voters’ minds, the Senate and the Oval Office can be won and sanity can prevail. If Obama through slight of forked-tongue can make himself appear “reasonable” to the electorate and re-elected in 2012, there is no limit to the harm that our nation will face (bankruptcy will be the smallest part of it). It’s a strategic battle . . . a chess game.

            Rajjpuut has coached children as young as two years old to become strong chess players and helped some of them earn five Colorado Chess Team Championships in the elementary, middle school and high school divisions in Colorado. No matter what the game involved (or the personal, military or commercial requisite) is, strategy always comes down to this:

1)      Play so that the opponent’s weaknesses become the key factor in the game. If he’s got an exposed King, a bad Bishop or tripled Pawns . . . make them stink up the board.

2)    Play so that your own weaknesses are irrelevant.

3)    Play so that your opponent’s strengths are irrelevant or unusable.

4)    Play so that your own strengths are the dominant factor across the whole board.

5)    Play aggressively if possible; or play defense so tenaciously that the opponent will face a lot of tough situations and in frustration will eventually slip however slightly.

            What are Obama’s weaknesses? What lost the Democrats so much in 2010? Obama has said directly, he does not “wish to re-fight the battles of the past couple years.” Obamacare; willingness to tax; willingness to spend; creation of huge deficits; cap and trade and other EPA interference; card check; his inconsistencies and lies of the past four years (starting in January, 2007, when he declared his candidacy for president); his apology-tour foreign policy; putting federally-paid abortion in Obamacare; stopping drilling in the Gulf; creating inflation; weakening the dollar; taking over the economy so that government went from 15% control to 58% control of American life; the Beer Summit; and now his refusal to show leadership in financial matters but rather to provide a ludicrous and irresponsible federal budget. The biggest weakness of Barack Obama is a combination of 1) The Democratic Party’s part in CRA ’77 legislation (Bill Clinton expanded it four times; three times legislatively) 2) His connection to ACORN and Clinton’s Connection to ACORN and 3) When Bush was trying for 30 months to repeal CRA ’77, the Democrats stopped him and all of that led to the meltdown in late 2007 and 2008 via the sub-prime lending crisis.
            What are the conservative's potential weaknesses?  Social-conservativism especially as attached to anti-abortionism is largely unpopular.  It is, however, popular to prevent federal funding of abortion, such as President Obama swore he would to get Obamacare passed, IF the G.O. P. can confine itself to that:  no problem.  And of course the Lame Duck compromises showed Obama that some conservatives will not stand up for their principles.

            What are the G.O.P.’s strengths? The TEA Party “Contract from America” and the G.O.P. “Pledge to America say 90% of it all. If 60% of voters became familiar with these documents, Obama would have trouble getting 30% of the vote. The Republicans have also appeared more statesmanlike over the past two years and reasonable; and conservative-fiscal and Constitutional-conservativism is the approach that won the day on Election Day, 2010.

            What are Obama’s strengths? People don’t look at the truth of what he’s saying because they want to like him so much . . . thus, he can get away with almost anything and Republicans have not held his feet to the fire.   For example, the President has never told Americans that he worked as an ACORN attorney shaking down mortgage lenders to force them into compliance with CRA ’77 and he even went so far as to tell his “car in the ditch story” in at least 150 speeches while the Republicans were so foolish as never to expose Obama’s ACORN activities; CRA and Cloward Piven’s role in the meltdown; or Bush’s efforts to undo CRA ’77 and prevent the sub-prime lending crisis which led to our financial meltdown. This truth has never been revealed or understood by the voters as a whole, and until it has been, Obama will personally seem almost unassailable . . . .


            The TRUE CAR IN THE DITCH Story

                      In January, 2005, President George W. Bush saw that progressive Democrats, ACORN, Clinton and Obama were deliberately pushing the car (our American economy) toward a 500-foot ditch. He jumped in the driver’s seat and grabbed the steering wheel and slammed on the brakes. Despite Democratic opposition for 30 months, he was able to guide it into the nearest friendly-looking ditch by July, 2007.


             Since that is the 100% truth which 96% of Americans don’t know and since that underlined word “deliberately” ties the whole thing to the progressive movement and the aims of Cloward, Piven, George Wiley and Wade Rathke and to the ACORN presidencies of Obama and Clinton . . . no matter what obstacles the lamestream-mainstream media throw in their path, that history of treachery must be revealed.


             Here are five “fact paintings” to push the point into America’s permanent memory:

#1: In 1975 before CRA ’77 only 1 in 404 home loans was “suspect,” that is issued at 3% down-payment or less. America in 1975 with 62-65% private home ownership is the envy of the world. That solid beneficial status rests upon the accepted standards of long years: a 20% down payment requirement for home buyers and great credit ratings. CRA ’77 FORCED home lenders to knowingly make stupid loans to unqualified recipients at ultra-low down payments.

#2: In 1985 after eight years of CRA ’77 and ACORN operating in Clinton’s Arkansas alone and in no other states:  1 in 196 home mortgages was suspect. That is the rate of bad loans has doubled just from ACORN browbeating lenders in one state, Arkansas.

#3: In 1995 after three CRA ’77 expansions by Clinton (two of them legislatively) and the expansion of ACORN nationwide: now 1 in every 7 home loans was suspect. By the way, Barack Obama worked as an ACORN attorney during this era, browbeating mortgage lenders into making knowingly horrific loans to bad risks.

#4:  In 2005 following seven years of Clinton’s 1998 “steroid-version” expansion of CRA ’77: 34%, roughly 1 in every 3 home loans was suspect with many issued with 0% down-payment. Thanks to Clinton’s ’98 steroid expansion of CRA ’77 it’s now easier for ACORN to force home lenders to put an unqualified would-be home buyer into a $440,000 home than it was a decade earlier for Barack Obama and other ACORN attorneys to put the same person into a $110,000 home . . . and it’s now far more likely that the loan recipient a) won’t have a job or b) won’t even have a rental history or c) won’t even have I.D. or d) will list his only “income” as food stamps; or be on welfare or e) will have a terrible credit rating or f) will be an illegal alien.

#5 Luckily Al Gore didn’t win the presidency in 2000. Gore was a big believer in CRA legislation. Instead George W. Bush is elected between the two ACORN presidents, Clinton and Obama, and rather than driving the “car” into the ditch by incompetence as Obama loves to imply, Bush keeps the economy from utter ruin created by the deliberate actions of ACORN in abusing CRA ’77  (a deliberate Cloward-Piven effort to overload the system and create chaos using Saul Alinsky tactics) and prevents it going over the cliff, but rather he steers it into a friendly ditch and away from the abyss the progressives were pushing us toward. It happens like this . . . .

In January, 2005, George Bush makes the first speech (of 19 speeches he’ll make in the next 30 months) on the dangers of the CRA ’77 law and its expansions seeking repeal of the worst aspects of the laws. However, the bill he supports is defeated by the progressive Democrats and various compromise bills will continue to be defeated by them until a very weak version of his bill is  finally passed in July, 2007. It is, of course, too little and too late and the sub-prime lending crisis is soon underway. Nevertheless, the new law Bush passed is hailed in August 2010 by Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as saving the country’s economy from a truly hideous recession and an absolute meltdown in housing prices.

            These truths, of course, are as unpopular with the mainstream, lamestream media as Bush himself was . . . yet, these are the truths that will set the country free . . . These truths; the “chess-like” strategy mentioned above and simple patriotic stubbornness*** are the secrets to dealing with Mr. Obama and his progressive ilk.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



*** D. Morris at his website put it like this:


                    “If the Republicans hold firm in demanding huge spending cuts and Obama does not give in, the question of whether or not to cut spending will dominate the nation's political discourse for months on end and will spill over into the 2012 election.


                    “To assure that it will, the Republicans should hold firm to their budget spending cuts without surrender or compromise. If necessary, it is OK to vote a few very short-term continuing resolutions to keep the government open for a few weeks at a time, always keeping on the pressure.


                    “When the debt limit vote comes up, they should refuse to allow an increase without huge cuts in spending. If the debt-limit deadline passes, they should force the administration to scramble to cobble together enough money to operate for weeks at a time.


                    “If Obama offers a half a loaf, the GOP should spurn it for weeks and months. Then, rather than actually shut down the government, let them accept some variant of their proposed cuts but only give in return a few more weeks' time, at which point the issue will be re-litigated. Don't go for Armageddon -- just keep fighting the battle.


                    “Same with the debt limit. Extend it for a few hundred billion dollars and then go back for more cuts in return for a further extension. Make Obama pay for each continuing resolution and each debt-limit hike with more cuts to spending.


                    “Always avoid cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Save those for after 2012. For now, focus on Medicaid block granting and discretionary spending (including some modest cuts in defense).


                    “Like a guerrilla army, never go to a shutdown (a general engagement) but keep coming up with cuts, compromising, letting the government stay open for a few more weeks, and letting the debt limit rise a few hundred billion, and then come back for more cuts and repeat the cycle.


                    “And don't just demand spending cuts. Go for defunding of Obamacare, blocking the EPA from carbon taxation and regulation, a ban on card-check unionization and constraints on the FCC's regulation of the Internet and talk radio. Put those items on the table each time, each session.


                    “Every time the issues come up, every time the cuts are litigated, Obama's efforts to appear to be a centrist will be frustrated. Time and again, he will have to oppose spending cuts. Over and over, he will come across as the liberal he is, battling for each dime and opposing any defunding.


                    “Obama's campaign strategy has two elements: Change the subject from the 09-10 agenda and move to the center. A tough, determined Republican budget offensive, embracing all these elements and fought in this guerrilla style, will frustrate both and lead to his defeat.”


Read more…