Tag Archives: science

Green Corruption: Over 80% of “Green Jobs” money went to Obama donors, 50 “green” companies going under…

In a nutshell: 150 more Obama Administration emails released showing how green energy money was steered to Obama cronies with sham junk bond companies. The list of green jobs companies gone or going under grows to 50. That is your money folks.

With so many of these green energy boondoggles it looks like this: Obama gives big taxpayer money to a fund raiser who is an owner in a “green energy company”. Said owners pay themselves in a big way, give big money to Democrats and go out of business.

While the administration claims that this was all science and no politics, a slew of leaked emails show the corruption and influence peddling.

Our friends Christine Lakatos at Green Corruption and Marita Noon at Townhall  have been tracking the list of green jobs boondoggles that are going out of business after paying themselves lavishly with your money. That list went from 15, to 16, to 36  and now 50 green jobs enterprises paid for with your money that either have shut down or are about to. See that list here:

http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/2012/10/green-alert-tracking-president-obamas.html

Via the research from Lakatos and Noon, the Daily Caller is now running with this story, as is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich:

Newt comments on the erupting “green corruption”story after he discusses the emails showing that the order to let or embassy staff die was from the White House.

Erupting indeed. Emails showing the influence peddling and corruption keep coming out.

The House Oversight Committee has released a new set of 150 emails that show how your money was steered to cronies in the name of green jobs. More on this story from Marita Noon in today’s Townhall (excerpt):

The 1705 loan guarantee program had 460 applicants, but only 7% were approved—26 projects were funded. Of those 26 projects 22 were junk-bond rated—meaning private investors wouldn’t fund them. So why did we, the taxpayers?

Our research showed that at least 90% of the projects had close ties to the White House and other high ranking Democrats. Despite the obvious connection, President Obama has repeatedly denied any involvement—preferring to blame “career bureaucrats” who could take the fall with no political consequence.

In March, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, testified that, “We looked at the loans on their own merits.” Also, back in November 2011, he said: “I am aware of no communication from White House to Department of Energy saying to make the loan or to restructure.”

Just last week, on October 26, President Obama affirmed Chu’s position when he said: “Decisions made in the loan program office are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics.”

However, late Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a new report of “over 150 emails that contradict statements by the President, Secretary Chu, and White House and DOE officials.” The emails reveal a series of questionable practices, including coercion, cronyism and, cover ups.

Read the rest HERE.

Says Noon, “The Obama green energy program is the largest, most expensive, and deceptive case of crony capitalism in American history”.

See the rest of our green jobs scam and Solyndra coverage HERE.

UPDATE – Even MORE from the House Oversight Committee: Obama Administration lying about the influence peddling; caught again with more of their own emails.

House Oversight Committee:

INTERVIEW EXCERPT FROM KUSA Channel 9 News Denver Colorado’s Kyle Clark:

KYLE CLARK: In a national address, you touted the stimulus money going to Abound Solar – a Colorado company connected to one of your billionaire fundraisers. Now, as you may know, Abound Solar is out of business and under criminal investigation. The jobs are gone and taxpayers are out about 60 million dollars. How do you answer critics who see Abound Solar as Colorado’s Solyndra – a politically connected clean energy company that went under and took our money with it?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Laughs) Well, Kyle, I think that if you look at our record that these loans that are given out by the Department of Energy for clean energy have created jobs all across the country and only about four percent of these loans were going to some very cutting-edge industries that are going to allow us to figure out how to produce energy in a clean, renewable way in the future and create jobs in Colorado and all around the country. And some of them have failed but the vast majority of them are pushing us forward into a clean energy direction. And that’s good for Colorado and good for the country. And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics.

Investigative Reporter Todd Shepherd: NOT POLITICAL? EMAILS SHOW WHITE HOUSE DROVE FAILED GREEN-LOAN IN COLORADO

CompleteColorado.com has obtained emails that seem to directly contradict Plouffe’s answer, and also challenge the President’s notion that the DOE’s loan decisions were universally autonomous within the agency. The emails also lend even more credence to the theory that the loan to Abound Solar was political payback to Colorado’s wealthy Democratic benefactor and Gang-of-Four member, Pat Stryker.”

In the above email thread, DOE loan executive Jonathan Silver tells DOE credit advisor Jim McCrea, “You better let him know the WH wants to move Abound forward.” It appears to be a mild scolding to a Treasury advisor, Ian Samuels, who is not moving fast enough to schedule calls regarding Abound.

The second page of the email thread makes mention of “…transaction pressure under which we are all now operating…” This entire email thread happened just a few days before President Obama would hail the government-backed loans as a job creator for Colorado.

Bruce Springsteen: Runs a fake farm to avoid paying taxes

Posted by Kate Dalzell

Singer and liberal activist Bruce Springsteen is well … a man of the people.

“He stands up for the little guy. A regular blue-collar Joe. A union man. A bona fide working-class hero.

And, when he’s not busy being all that… he’s a tax-dodging liberal hypocrite worth over $200 million who pretends to be a farmer to save hundreds of thousands of dollars on his property taxes that would have otherwise funded the welfare programs he pretends to care about.”

Frank Seabrook:
That’s right. Mr. “Union Man, Blue Collar” Springsteen is a total fraud, as I explain in my brand-new book Hollywood Hypocrites: The Devastating Truth About Obama’s Biggest Backers.

Recall that Springsteen actively campaigned for Obama in 2008, hosting free concerts that attracted tens of thousands of people in key battleground states. Springsteen’s song, “The Rising,” became a campaign staple for Obama’s speech venues and culminated in him playing for Obama’s Inauguration. And this time around, the White House plans on using the aging rocker’s new politically-motivated track, “We Take Care of Our Own,” to warm up crowds as the re-election bid kicks into high gear.
~snip

Bruce Springsteen pays over $138,000 a year in taxes for his three-acre home in Colts Neck, New Jersey. He owns another 200 adjoining acres. But because he has a part-time farmer come and grow a few tomatoes (organic, of course) and has horses, his tax bill on the remaining 200 acres is just $4,639 bucks. Do the math.  By being a fake farmer, the working-class zero Springsteen is making a mint by robbing New Jersey of the antipoverty program funds he says they desperately need.

“I think it is unfair to our other property taxpayers that if you are a fake farmer, and that you don’t legitimately farm, that you are getting a property tax break and forcing your neighbor to pick up your tab,” said state senator Jennifer Beck. “That was not the intent of the law. It’s a violation of the public trust.” When Fox 5 New York reporter Barbara Nevins Taylor asked a lawyer for the trust that owns Springsteen’s land to comment on the Boss’s lucrative fake-farming tax breaks, predictably, the lawyer had no comment.

The tax loophole comes from the New Jersey’s Farmland Assessment Act of 1964. Originally the provision was created to help preserve agriculture in New Jersey. To qualify for the tax break, landowners must own at least five acres of land and produce just $500 a year in goods in order to qualify. Anyone who can meet those minimum standards can reduce their farmland tax bills by an astounding 98 percent.

 

British Meteorological Office: No Global Warming for 16 Years

The significance of this admission from them cannot be understated. The British Met is the academic epicenter of global warming alarmism. They work closely with the University of East Anglia and other ClimateGate hoaxers like Michael Mann at the disgraced Penn State University.

UK Daily Mail:

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

  • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
  • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

By David Rose

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

global temperature changes

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

California Gas Stations Close as Rationing Hits Consumers

When governmet demonizes and industry, scapegoats it, seeks to make it unprofitable with excessive regulation, the result is much less incentive to produce the product. Production drops and the shortage begin. Rent control has the exact same affect. Similar policies caused the gas lines and shortages under Carter as well. Those with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics understand this and yet new university trained leftist academics keep causing these same problems and keep expecting a different result.

This administration seems to think that by making regulatory war on refineries, drilling, coal technology and power plants people will rush out to pin a solar panel on their car (a solar panel made in China no doubt).

Bloomberg News:

Gasoline station owners in the Los Angeles area including Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) are beginning to shut pumps as the state’s oil refiners started rationing supplies and spot prices surged to a record.

Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) stopped selling gasoline on the spot, or wholesale, market in Southern California and is allocating deliveries to customers. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is also rationing fuel to U.S. West Coast terminal customers. Costco’s outlet in Simi Valley, 40 miles (64 kilometers) northwest of Los Angeles, ran out of regular gasoline yesterday and was selling premium fuel at the price of regular.

The gasoline shortage “feels like a hurricane to me, but it’s the West Coast,” Jeff Cole, Costco’s vice president of gasoline, said by telephone yesterday. “We’re obviously extremely disheartened that we are unable to do this, and we’re pulling fuel from all corners of California to fix this.”

Spot gasoline in Los Angeles has surged $1 a gallon this week to a record $1.45 a gallon premium versus gasoline futures traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s the highest level for the fuel since at least November 2007, when Bloomberg began publishing prices there. On an outright basis, the fuel has jumped to $4.3929 a gallon.

Prices Jump

Gasoline at the pump gained 8.3 cents to $4.315 a gallon in California yesterday, according to AAA.com, 53.1 cents more than the national average of $3.784. In Los Angeles the price was $4.347. Gasoline futures for November delivery on the Nymex rose 14.34 cents to settle at $2.9429 a gallon, after falling yesterday to a 10-week low. Retail price movements tend to lag behind those of futures.

“Product supply in California has tightened, especially in Southern California, due to refinery outages,” Bill Day, a Valero spokesman at the company’s headquarters in San Antonio, said by e-mail.

 

Related:

More energy price hikes and power shortages on the way due to government regulation – LINK

Obama’s EPA Shutting Down 10% of America’s Power Plant Capacity – LINK

Obama’s EPA crushing coal-fired power plants, electricity bills rise… – LINK

Candidate Joe Kennedy III Calls for End To “Cheap Oil” – LINK

Gas Prices Under President Obama – LINK

EPA Official on Video: We Are “Crucifying” Oil And Gas Companies – LINK

Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent – LINK

Obama Green Energy Program Cost $9.8 million Per Job – LINK

15th Green Energy Company Funded by Obama Goes Under – LINK

On Oil Obama Says One Thing & Does Another – LINK

GAO: Recoverable American oil in a single location equal to the entire world oil reserves – LINK

Obama stands against Israel viral short documentary says (video)

Editor’s Note – This very writer has written on this subject several times both here and on my former college blog (LINKLINK). During 2008-09 I was one of the very few who was not surprised in the least to see Obama appoint several arch antisemites such as Samantha Power and Robert Malley. Why was this writer not surprised? Because Obama came from radicalized leftist academia and antisemitism among university leftists is fashion at most large universities. Obama hung out with Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Obama’s own mother was an academic who specialized in “critical theory” which is Marxism on steroids. Obama even says in his own book that Marxist academics are who he sought out to associate with.

 

A new, 18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008. Yet as her connection to Israel has grown, and she has learned more about the President’s policies across the Middle East and towards Israel in particular, Irina has come to realize that “when the chips are down,” the President may not “have Israel’s back” as he says.

The short film features:

Exclusive interviews with leading journalists and politicians in Israel
(Bloomberg, London Times, Jerusalem Post, etc.)

Mainstream news reports (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, BBC, etc.),

Clips from longtime Democratic supporters including: Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

 

Allen West dismantles CNBC “reporter” on jobs numbers (video)

Florida Republican Rep. Allen West defended his skepticism surrounding the September non-farm payrolls report in an interview on CNBC early this afternoon. The so called “objective reporter” from NBC’s cable channel,  Tyler Mathisen, got rather testy with Allen West and tried to interrupt him so he could not explain his point of view. West would have none of Mathisen’s nonsense. Mathisen is on the verge of becoming unhinged during much of the interview skin to a Chris  Mathews meltdown.

Here is the exchange:

MATHISEN: “You are alleging specifically that the president is engaging in a cover-up of the data. You are saying that the administration is actively manipulating that data. Correct?”

WEST: “Well, absolutely. Look at what happened with our GDP numbers. Fourth-quarter GDP numbers last year were 3 percent…”

MATHISEN: “Do you have any basis on which you say that? Do you have any basis on which you say that? Any source? Anyone that has come to you and said, ‘This is the case?’ I mean, do you realize how difficult it would be for someone to pull off that kind of conspiracy, given the number of people in the labor department, given the number of surveyors out there, one of whom would probably say, ‘Wait a minute! That’s not the right number!'”

WEST: “Well, if you would stop yelling in my ear and allow me to answer your questions, maybe we could get to the bottom of this. When you look at the GDP numbers — which have gone from 4.1 percent, then it went to 1.9 percent, then it was at 1.7 percent. It got revised down just about a month ago to 1.3 percent. We’ve got numbers that are all over the place. And we don’t understand the direction this economy is going. … I don’t see these numbers that people are talking about, and I don’t see how they can come back later in this month and say they’re revising the numbers from July and August. So I’m very questionable with what we do see out of this administration, because the numbers don’t add up.

Obama’s EPA Shutting Down 10% of America’s Power Plant Capacity

EPA Power-Plant-Closures
Click to Enlarge

Ten percent of our power just like that and some states are already suffering from black outs and brown outs. Is this the change you voted for in 2008?
Institute for Energy Research:

Download the Updated Report as a PDF

More than 34 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity are now set to retire because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (colloquially called Utility MACT)[1] and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)[2] regulations. Most of these retirements will come from coal-fired power plants, shuttering over 10 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.

This report is an update of a report we issued in October 2011.[3] Last October the original report, we calculated that 28.3 GW of generating capacity would close as a result of EPA’s regulations. At the time, we warned that “this number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.” Unfortunately, this statement has proven to be true. This update, a mere eight months later, shows that 34.7 GW of electrical generating capacity will close—a 6.4 GW increase.

According to EPA, their modeling of Utility MACT and CSAPR indicates that these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. But events in the real world already show that EPA’s modeling is a gross underestimate.

To calculate the impact of EPA’s rules, we first assumed that EPA’s modeling of the regulation correctly predicted which power plants would close as a result of the regulations. Then, we looked at statements, filings, and announcements from electrical generators where the generators were closing power plants and in which they cited EPA’s regulations as the precipitating cause of the plant closures. We then compared EPA’s modeling outputs with the announcements and created a master list of plant closures as the result of EPA regulations (the master list is below).

Combining actual announcements with EPA’s modeling shows that EPA’s modeling grossly underestimates the actual number of closures. As noted above, EPA calculated that only 9.5 GW of electrical generating capacity would close as a result of its rules. But the reality is that over 35 GW of power generating capacity will likely close—over three times the amount predicted by EPA modeling. Worse, as utilities continue to assess how to comply with EPA’s finalized Utility MACT rule and CSAPR, there will likely be further plant closure announcements in the coming weeks and months.

GM Brags: Since bailout 70% of our manufacturing outside of US. Announced GM R&D moving to China (video)

This will make your stomach turn. Your bailout money goes to sponsor Chinese propaganda films sponsored by GM. You can watch a GM CEO Dan Ackerson brag that since the bailout 70% of GM’s manufacturing is outside of the USA. They also announced that much of GM’s R&D will move to China in part so as to give advanced technology to the Chinese Government.

Remember that according to far left university academic theory U.S. wealth is essentially “capitalist ill-gotten gains” and that our wealth needs to be transferred to the rest of the world.

Over 100 Million Now Receiving Federal Welfare

Related:

CIS: 57% of illegal immigrant households on welfare – LINK

Welfare grew by 19% under Obama! Total Obama Stimulus Bills $2.5 TRILLION – LINK

5.4 Million Join Disability Rolls Under Obama – LINK

Real GDP Tanked at 1.7%. Food Stamps and Welfare at Record Levels – LINK

Food Stamp Spending Doubled Since 2008. Welfare Spending Nearing $1 Trillion a Year – LINK

 

 

The Weekly Standard:

“The federal government administers nearly 80 different overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs,” the Senate Budget Committee notes. However, the committee states, the figures used in the chart do not include those who are only benefiting from Social Security and/or Medicare.

Food stamps and Medicaid make up a large–and growing–chunk of the more than 100 million recipients. “Among the major means tested welfare programs, since 2000 Medicaid has increased from 34 million people to 54 million in 2011 and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) from 17 million to 45 million in 2011,” says the Senate Budget Committee. “Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $800 billion over the next decade.”

The data come “from the U.S. Census’s Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that nearly 110,000 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011. (These figures do not include other means-tested benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the health insurance premium subsidies included in the President’s health care law. CBO estimates that the premium subsidies, scheduled to begin in 2014, will cover at least 25 million individuals by the end of the decade.)”

Biden to Black Americans: Romney gonna put y’all back in chains!

Wow, talk about unhinged. And of course Andrea Saul can’t think of anything imaginative to respond with.

If there is inner city violence come election day, Democrats should blame Biden as his rhetoric is nothing short of unhinged incitement.

 

Ben Shapiro at Breitbart News:

This morning in Virginia, Vice President Joe Biden dropped some shocking and offensive language in ripping into Mitt Romney’s economic plans. Stooping to a new low, Biden said, “Romney wants to let the—he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules–unchain Wall Street. They gonna put y’all back in chains.”

The southern accent Biden adopts for that last line is deeply disturbing; it’s a clear reference to slavery. The city of Danville, where Biden was speaking, has a black population of 48.6 percent; 19.8 percent of all Virginians are black. Those facts surely did not go unnoticed by Biden. This is race-baiting as its finest. It is despicable.

The Romney campaign responded immediately, demanding an apology from the Obama campaign. “After weeks of slanderous and baseless accusations leveled against Governor Romney, the Obama Campaign has reached a new low,” said Andrea Saul, Romney’s campaign spokeswoman, in a statement. “The comments made by the Vice President of the United States are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama Campaign will say and do anything to win this election. President Obama should tell the American people whether he agrees with Joe Biden’s comments.”

Thus far, such tactics have not worked on the Obama campaign, which seemingly has no shame; last week, they allowed an associated Super PAC to attack Romney as the passive murderer of Joe Soptic’s wife, and refused to condemn such action. With the Obama campaign becoming more and more desperate, their language is becoming more and more extreme. Paul Ryan’s selection as Mitt Romney’s VP pick seems to be shaking up the Democrats’ strategy – and their fallback position appears to be vulgarity and political slander.

CBO: ObamaCare Will Leave 30 Million Uninsured

And we have been saying this since when?????

CNS News:

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says that under the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, 30 million non-elderly Americans will remain without health insurance in 2022.

One of the main arguments the Obama administration made for passing the Affordable Care Act was that it would provide coverage for the uninsured.

Currently, according to CBO, there are 53 million uninsured persons in the United States, including uninsured illegal aliens. The CBO estimates that in 2022–8 years after the Affordable Care Act has been fully implemented–30 million people will remain uninsured.

Moreover, under Obamacare, 8 percent of legal U.S. residents will remain without health insurance in 2022, according to CBO.

The report was done to assess the fiscal impact of the Supreme Court June Obamacare decision.

“CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade, leaving 30 million nonelderly residents uninsured by the end of the period,” the report said.

“Before the Supreme Court’s decision, the latter number had been 27 million,” states the report.

Obama’s EPA crushing coal-fired power plants, electricity bills rise…

RELATED:

Candidate Joe Kennedy III Calls for End To “Cheap Oil” – LINK

Gas Prices Under President Obama – LINK

EPA Official on Video: We Are “Crucifying” Oil And Gas Companies – LINK

Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent – LINK

Obama Green Energy Program Cost $9.8 million Per Job – LINK

15th Green Energy Company Funded by Obama Goes Under – LINK

On Oil Obama Says One Thing & Does Another – LINK

GAO: Recoverable American oil in a single location equal to the entire world oil reserves – LINK

 

 

Phil Kerpen:

With the country focused on this week’s high drama at the Supreme Court, President Obama’s EPA quietly released long-delayed regulations to apply global warming rules never authorized by Congress to new coal-fired power plants.

That Obama’s EPA would release a rule to destroy coal-fired electricity while the president gives stump speeches about an “all of the above” energy policy is an insult to the American people.

This rule will effectively block any new coal-fired power plants from being built in America, and a second round of related rules – expected after the election, of course – will shut down existing coal-fired power plants.

The result will be steeply higher electricity prices, lost jobs, and lower standards of living. Remarkably, this is all done in the name of global warming, but even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits it will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Obama’s EPA is crippling the U.S. economy not to accomplish anything, but just to enjoy a nice, warm, green feeling of self-satisfaction.

Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his anti-coal energy policy in an editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama said: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.” He went on to explain: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Indeed Obama attempted to make good on his campaign promise to bankrupt the coal industry and make electricity prices skyrocket the legitimate way – by proposing cap-and-trade legislation in Congress. It was jammed through the House but crashed and burned in the Senate, where many Democrats understood such an energy rationing plan to be political suicide.

They were right.

The American people decisively rejected energy taxes and rationing in the 2010 election, with dozens of Democrats losing because of their support for cap-and-trade. West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin survived and won his Senate seat by literally shooting a bullet through in the bill in a television ad.

But the day after the 2010 election President Obama said: “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

With Tuesday’s EPA action to bankrupt coal, he found his “other means” to address the “problem” of affordable electricity.

As I demonstrated in my book “Democracy Denied”, under Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the power to make these decisions resides in Congress, not the EPA.

The House has already acted to fix the structural problem that allows bureaucrats to implement economy-changing rules without congressional approval when they passed the REINS Act last year, a bill that would require prior-approval from Congress for major new regulations.

The Senate has refused to act on the legislation.

Fortunately, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has already promised to introduce a resolution of disapproval that will put every senator on the record on this global warming power grab. Because the resolution is privileged under the Congressional Review Act, Harry Reid cannot prevent it from coming to the floor and it cannot be filibustered.

Whatever the result of that Senate vote is, it will ultimately be up to the American people to hold Congress and the president accountable for the actions taken by rogue EPA bureaucrats this week.

Nothing less than America’s economic future is at stake.

Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and the author of “Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him.”

 

86% of Romney Elite Media Coverage Negative; Obama Coverage “Gushing” With Approval…

Their coverage of McCain/Palin was not even this negative.

Lets talk about Sarah Palin for just a moment. People now realize that Sarah Palin has been correct on issue after issue. She was right about ObamaCare, she was right about how radical the Obama Administration would be, she was also right when she predicted the rise of food prices very early on. Even the Wall Street Journal trashed Palin for the food prediction, but time after time she has been shown correct. The result is that more and more people doubt the elite media and truly understand just how vicious a partisan attack machine it has become.

Washington Times:

Media bias has gone from bad to ridiculous.

During Mitt Romney’s overseas visit earlier this week, 86 percent of the coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC “emphasized Romney’s perceived gaffes,” according to a content analysis of 21 major news stories by the Media Research Center, which also compared Mr. Romney’s trip to a similar excursion made by President Obama in 2008.

The results: The broadcast networks committed 53 minutes of almost entirely negative coverage to Mr. Romney, and 92 minutes of “gushing” to Mr. Obama.

“The near unanimous negativity of their coverage is as outrageous as it is transparent,” observes the center’s founder Brent Bozell. “It’s impossible to look at the fawning coverage of Obama’s trip in 2008 compared to the sliming Romney has taken in 2012 and not see a clear agenda on the part of the liberal media.”

mmm

Emails Show Rahm Emanuel Lied About Solyndra Scandal

Related: 16th Green Energy Company Funded by Obama Goes Under – LINK

See our other green energy scam coverage HERE.

Via the Washington Free Beacon:

BY:
August 2, 2012 5:07 pm

Chicago mayor and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel repeatedly claimed he had no memory of the Obama administration’s controversial $535 million loan to failed solar company Solyndra, but White House emails released Thursday say it was Emanuel’s idea for the administration to tout the doomed firm.

In a batch of White House emails released in a report on Solyndra by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday, White House aide Aditya Kumar wrote to Jacob Levine of the Office of Energy and Climate Change: “Feels like Rahm wants this too (barring any concerns) — POTUS involvement was Rahm’s idea.”

However, speaking to Chicago radio station WLS 890AM at a news conference in September, 2011, Emanuel said he did not remember anything about the failed investment loan by the Department of Energy, which critics say was fast-tracked to fit the White House’s political agenda.

“Ya know, I’m focusing on a major announcement today for the City Of Chicago,” Emanuel said. “I don’t actually remember that or know about it.”

Four weeks later, Emanuel again claimed he did not remember anything about the Solyndra loan.

Earlier emails revealed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee hinted at Emanuel’s involvement.

An assistant to Emanuel wrote on Aug. 31, 2009, to the Office of Management and Budget about the administration’s upcoming Solyndra announcement, and asked whether “there is anything we can help speed along on OMB side.”

The director of the OMB at the time was Jack Lew, now White House Chief of Staff. The Washington Post reported Thursday that Lew allowed the Solyndra loan to be restructured despite warnings from his staff.

Obama Gives AARP $52 Million – And It Wasn’t Because He Loves Seniors….

AARP, whose board of directors has been hijacked by liberal political activists threw seniors under the bus when they supported ObamaCare with its bureaucrats that can deny seniors access to care (after Obamacare is fully implemented) and its half a TRILLION dollars in Medicare cuts. President Obama of course sought to enrich those who run AARP with some giveaways [from my old college blog – yes we were paying attention even then]:

AARP Making Mega-Millions on Corrupt ObamaCare “Easter Egg” – LINK

Corrupt AARP Health Care Deal Puts Seniors at Risk – LINK

AARP and Many Others Hiking Premiums or Dumping Coverage Because of ObamaCare – LINK

 

Now this. Big Government:

Today, the Department of Labor proudly announced that it had given away some $260 million in grants to various organizations through its Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). SCSEP is “a community service and work-based training program for older workers – providing subsidized, part-time, community service training for unemployed, low-income persons 55 or older who have poor employment prospects.”

Sounds great. Except the biggest recipients of SCSEP cash are Democratic political surrogates.

The largest single recipient of general SCSEP funds was – you guessed it – the American Association of Retired Persons Foundation, which pulled down almost $52 million. The AARP Foundation is a wing of the AARP, which stands to make some $1 billion over the next decade thanks to Obamacare and spends hundreds of millions of dollars to push liberal policies. The head of the AARP contributed some $8,900 to Obama’s campaign committees in 2008.

Coincidentally, the DOL is handing $6.6 million to the National Urban League – and it just so happens that President Obama spoke at the NUL this week in an attempt to reinvigorate his black support base.

The goodies keep on coming for President Obama’s friends. And that’s his entire campaign strategy: buy off specific constituency with taxpayer cash, and then let them push him to victory.

Obama’s “You Didn’t Build That” comments were not out of context (video)

Romney Obama Built Out of Context

Judge for yourself. When Obama goes off teleprompter he gets that tear and hesitation in his voice that we have gotten to know so well.

Governor Romney makes a good point here – “The Context Is Worse Than The Quote”

The “You didn’t build that/you don’t deserve to keep most of your profits” theme is nothing new among radicalized anti-capitalist academia. I heard it when I was in college from Marxist professors. In the video below Massachusetts Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren, the professor who lied about being a native American to get her job at university, says the same thing (listen to the hostility in her voice).

CBO: Employers to be hit with $4 billion more in ObamaCare taxes than expected

Washington Examiner:

Business owners will pay $4 billion more in taxes under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA)  than the Congressional Budget Office had previously expected.

“According to the updated estimates, the amount of deficit reduction from penalty payments and other effects on tax revenues under the ACA will be $5 billion more than previously estimated,” the CBO reported today. “That change primarily effects a $4 billion increase in collections from such payments by employers, a $1 billion increase in such payments by individuals, and an increase of less than $500 million in tax revenues stemming from a small reduction in employment-based coverage, which will lead to a larger share of total compensation taking the form of taxable wages and salaries and a smaller share taking the form of nontaxable health benefits.”

In short, CBO revised the Obamacare tax burden upward by $4 billion for businesses and $1 billion to $1.5 billion for individual workers.

CBO couldn’t help but bump into Chief Justice John Roberts controversial decision uphold the individual mandate as a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power. The report dubs the individual mandate a “penalty tax” — that is, “a penalty paid to the Treasury by taxpayers when they file their tax returns and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.”

Survey: Nearly one in 10 employers to drop health coverage…

Just as this writer predicted long ago, since ObamaCare places taxes on care and insurance policies, and skews the market in such a way to make insurance prices skyrocket; employers would rather pay the penalty than pay for the high cost of health insurance which is already going up fast as it is phases in.

Washington Times:

About one in 10 employers plan to drop health coverage when key provisions of the new health care law kick in less than two years from now, according to a survey to be released Tuesday by the consulting company Deloitte.

Nine percent of companies said they expect to stop offering coverage to their workers in the next one to three years, the Wall Street Journal reported. Around 81 percent said they would continue providing benefits and 10 percent said they weren’t sure.

The companies, though, said a lot will depend on how future provisions of the law unfold, since most of the key parts are scheduled to take effect in 2014. One in three respondents said they could stop offering coverage if the law requires them to provide more generous benefits than they do now, if a tax on high-cost plans takes effect in 2018 as scheduled or if they decide it would be cheaper for them to pay the penalty for not providing insurance.

While small business don’t face fines for failing to offer coverage, companies with 50 or more full time employees face a penalty starting at $2,000 per worker.

Deloitte conducted the study between February and April — before the Supreme Court upheld most of the law — and surveyed corporate and human-resources executives from 560 companies currently offering benefits.

In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that around seven percent of workers could lose coverage under the law by 2019.

Fox News Blasts Indiana University South-East for Unconstitutional “Speech Codes”

One would think that a university that has a law school could grasp something a simple as the First Amendment, but you would be wrong if you thought that. Censorship and discrimination against conservatives, Jews, Christians and other groups not in favor with the radical left are under some form of attack at our public universities. This problem is so huge that there are at least half a dozen civil rights organizations that use most ore all of their resources fighting just this type of illegal discrimination; and they are so overwhelmed with cases that they have to be selective on what cases to draw attention to.

Fox News:

If you thought college was a place for young people to speak out, challenges one another’s deeply-held beliefs and grow intellectually, chances are you’ve never been to Indiana University Southeast.

The school, located just 10 miles north of Louisville, Ky., is the latest college to see its speech code come under fire from a group that advocates freedom of speech on campuses. One stipulation in the code requires that students may only “express opinions” within a free speech zone, which is antithetical to what a college should stand for, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an advocacy organization which defends the free speech and due process rights of college students.

“It’s the price you pay for living in a free society,” Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President of FIRE, told FoxNews.com.”The entire enterprise of a university is to express scholarly thoughts and opinions…restraints on that are impossible.”

The broad regulation probably doesn’t even state what its clumsy crafters meant it to say, said Samantha Harris, FIRE director of speech code research.

“IUS almost certainly doesn’t mean this–if you want to tell your friend that you think it’s hot outside, you have to go to the zone to do it…it’s an indicator of just how poorly written and unconstitutional this policy is,” she said.

IUS’s code also requires university approval for acts of ‘expressed opinions’ by submitting an application at least five days in advance.

But the school defended the speech code, expressing concern the exercise of First Amendment rights outside designated zones could disrupt others’ pursuit of an education.

“[The guidelines] were intended to provide some guidance on the issue so that those wishing to gather and express an opinion could do so without endangering people or property,” the school told FoxNews.com in a statement. “The guidelines also were intended to protect the rights of all students to have unfettered access to educational activities on campus (in other words, the exercise of free speech rights should not result in blocking access to buildings or disrupting classes or campus events).”

The university also said that it has never had any complaints about the policy since its implementation in 2004, and it welcomes the FIRE’s feedback.

“We have to regulate other groups who come from off campus. Some come and preach a lot of hate. We just can’t have them wandering around campus with bullhorns over here,” Joseph Wert, associate professor of Political Science and Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Indiana University Southwest, told FoxNews.com.

Oh that sounds so reasonable doesn’t it? Yes you see, IUS had this problem with people roaming about aimlessly with BULL HORNS shouting so no one could study…….yup that must be it.

Yup, and Joseph Wert had to get a PhD. to come up with that one. Professor Wert you are an idiot, and you are even more of an idiot if you think that anyone is going to fall for such an excuse. First of all, the First Amendment has never been construed by the courts to allow what is known as a “heckler’s veto” meaning that the speech in question is not so much about content as it is about disrupting the lawful activities of others. Your university speech code is written in such a way to adjust the universities illegal reaction depending on the content of the speech; meaning that “Students for Pushing Israel Into the Sea” get a prominent place to hold their speech event, but “Students Against Abortion” get to have their event in a tiny room no one can find. College administrators and professors like Joeseph Wert gets lots of practice making the totally unreasonable sound reasonable.

That is why the policy is written so broadly and poorly, so that it can be used for selective enforcement. There are countless cases of FIRE and other groups helping students who have had such speech codes used against them illegally. This is why FIRE in league with other groups have been suing universities to have such speech codes thrown out by the courts. Universities know about these lawsuits, but too often they go to court anyways knowning full well they are going to lose only for the purpose of forcing civil rights groups to expend more resources. After all it’s only your tax dollars funding your local university.

Are Your Dollars Going to Doctors or Paper Pushers?

Remember when there were more people working in the Department of Agriculture than there were farmers? Well it is still that way, but that pales in comparison to this.

This chart perfectly explains the explosion of health care costs. Far too many dollars are going to administrators rather than medical professionals.

The 1993 Clinton Tax Increases Did Not Cause an Economic Boom…

The constant blurring of distinctions and the rewriting of history in political communications get really old.

The economy suffered after the Clinton tax increases and that is one reason why the Republican Revolution hit him in 1994 (along with gays in the military and HillaryCare which featured federal health care police with guns). Bill Clinton had campaigned on a tax cut to help get the economy growing again. He delivered just the opposite.

It is important to keep in mind that President Bush 41 went along with Democrats in increasing taxes in violation of his “read my lips no new taxes” promise. At the time Democrats praised President Bush saying “he had grown”, but when the tax increase resulted in a short 1-2 quarter recession the Democrats blasted him for reneging on his no new taxes pledge. Clinton ran against that tax increase and promised to lower them again.

But what about the Clinton economy and the surplus? Well that was in Clinton’s second term when Newt and the House Republicans balanced the budget, passed welfare reform over Clinton’s initial VETO threats and of course, the new GOP majority in Congress cut taxes.

Forbes:

The Dangerous Myth About the Clinton Tax Increase

One of the most dangerous myths that has infected the current debate over the direction of tax policy is the oft repeated claim that the tax increases under President Bill Clinton led to the boom of the 1990s.  In their Wall Street Journal Op-Ed last Friday, for example, Clinton campaign manager James Carville and Democratic pollster and Clinton advisor Stanley Greenberg write the increase in the top tax rate to 39.6% “produced the one period of shared prosperity in this past era (since 1980).”

While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase.  The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars).  In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular.  Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.

Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss.  Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said:  ”Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.”

During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.

For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.

Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year.  But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992.  No real gains for the middle class there.

However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.

  • Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
  • The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
  • In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
  • The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
  • Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
  • The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar.  Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

The boom was on.  Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:

  • Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
  • Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
  • As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s.  Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
  • Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
  • Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year.  Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.

Shared prosperity indeed!  But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.

Rather, it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.