Obama's GREENgate

GREENgate is the developing story that suggests that the Obama administration’s  “green jobs” program is more about delivering the “green” to major donors than creating sustainable “new economy” jobs.

First a couple of clips from Fox News revealing some of the details coming to light in the Solyndra scandal.  Next a clip from Jon Stewart’s Daily Show – you know things are bad when people from your own side of the political spectrum begin to poking fun at you.

  • V

    From http://www.opensecrets.org, Obama contributors:

    University of California $1,648,685
    Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
    Harvard University $864,654
    Microsoft Corp $852,167
    Google Inc $814,540
    JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
    Citigroup Inc $736,771
    Time Warner $624,618
    Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
    Stanford University $595,716
    National Amusements Inc $563,798
    Wilmerhale Llp $550,168
    Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
    Columbia University $541,002
    UBS AG $532,674
    IBM Corp $532,372
    General Electric $529,855
    US Government $517,908
    Morgan Stanley $512,232
    Latham & Watkins $503,295

    Many of his contributors are involved in research and development of green tech. Where else will the money go but the organizations where research and development of technology is conducted?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      That is not the point. The point is that the loans went ahead despite the fact that everybody knew that the company was going to fail. They even knew when the company would fail. Then the loan is restructured so that when the failure occured the Obama contributor is first in line for any cash leftover? And the taxpayers get zilch back? The whole thing is fishy with a capital F.

      • V

        “They even knew when the company would fail”

        That’s called a test date. They failed.

        “contributor is first in line for any cash leftover”

        But they are the ones with the vested interest, that’s surance

        -> if you give $100 of your money to a technician to construct a mechanical system for you and he fails to do it but it cost him $15 for parts where should the leftover $85 go? {to the “taxpayer” you say?}

        I don’t agree. I would want the full $100 back and then some. The $85 goes back in the pocket while I await the rest. Now if this technician came to me at a later date with the new numbers I could in effect see that through his failure that technician learned his way. I could easily give him the $85 and then some knowing that this time his approach is calculated to precise figures.

        People tend to work and get stronger through failure.

        “Does the failure of a whole bunch of green energy companies discredit the entire idea of a green energy economy? Of course it does.”

        Absolutely not. There is a point to trying.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

          You don’t make any sense at all. What is a test date? That is a term I have only heard associated with tests, as in exams for school. Surance is a word that is a synonym of assurance, which means certainty. And it was a certainty that the company would fail. And the vested interest in this case is the taxpayer, not the person who was a huge contributer to the Obama campaign. The loans were from taxpayer dollars.
          And why would you hire a technician to build a mechanical system? That would be an engineer. A technician is someone who maintains and modifies, or operates and monitors mechanical systems. An engineer would be someone that designs and builds mechanical systems. And why would you be entitled to getting more than your $100 dollar investment back? Every investment is a risk. If the mechanical system doesn’t work, you will still be out the $100 bucks because you were stupid enough to hire a technician to do an engineer’s job. Is that the technicians fault? He doesn’t get paid for his effort? Are you in an institution V? Because I’m thinking that you don’t actually live in the real world.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Once again it’s business as usual. This is just another example of why Liberals and Progressives oppose rule by corporate fiat. We oppose it and want it investigated. Problem is this will be done just to “get” Obama, if possible. Not for any other better reason. The really big crooks- finance (banks) and insurance, and of course pharmecuticals, and MIC, they get a pass every time, even bailouts for their criminal activities. Only the smaller guys, and gals, get the in-depth legal and media attention. Obama’s not dumb enough to be culpable in something like this, in my opinion. If he is, the Right will make sure of it. Which if he is somehow stupid enough to have done something crooked/illegal, then by all means prosecute or impeach whatever… That sad part of it is though the last administration got away with much much worse. But that is the way things work in a broken and corrupt system.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      “the last administration got away with much much worse” really? What, for example, did they do that was so scandalous and illegal that they got away with? If you are going to go there I would like some specific examples because frankly I don’t believe anything you say just because you assert it. Name one thing that is worse than this. And I will shut up.

      • Rob N. Hood

        To illegal and unnecessary wars. Just to mention two unconstitutional and budget busting items.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

          No no no. Not so fast there Bucko. The wars were illegal? really? Is that all you got? The wars? You really want to go there? Ok. Should I start with Iraq, or Afghanistan? I’ll start with the easy one Afghanistan. There was a group of terrorists that belonged to a terrorist group called Al Quada, that highjacked four airplanes on 9/11/01. They flew these airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and thanks to a group of brave passengers on United flight 93, a feild in Stonyville Township outside of Shanksville PA. They ended up killing just under 3,000 people in just a couple of hours. And the twin towers fell. Remember that? I sure do. Well, anyway we found out that Al Quada was holed up in Afghanistan with the Taliban. We asked them to give them up, they said no, we invaded.
          What is illegal about that? We were attacked, and we responded. If we had not we would have surely been attacked again. Again I ask, what is illegal about that?
          On to Iraq. I will try to sum this up quickly because it is late and I am tired. In the 80’s Saddam Husein attacked it’s neighbor Kuwait. He just waltzed in and took over claiming all of their resources. But, unfortunately for Saddam, Kuwait just happened to be an ally of the United States. Woops! So we did what any good ally would do for it’s ally, we invaded and kicked the snott out of Saddam. There was a cease fire declared by us, the U.S. and we told Saddam that he can’t attack his own people, which he did in the north, and the south using banned chemical weapons on the Kurds. We established no fly zones, which he constantly violated. And as he continued to talk a bunch of shizzle, he kicked out the UN inspectors who were keeping tabs on his NBC (that’s Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) facilities and programs. He continued to talk shizzle, continued to violate the terms of the cease fire, and UN resolutions, and as far as we knew he was getting close to having a nuke, and he was so belligerant everyone, including the Democrats, thought he would use it if given the chance. Then 9/11 happened, and Saddam stepped up his rhetoric, and was talkin even more shizzle! And then finally after, I think it was 17 UN resolution ultimatums, The POTUS gave the order to invade Iraq. So we did. What is illegal about that? Nothing. That’s what.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Wow, a clip from the very progressive Daily Show. That’s where you can receive some of the best news actually. We progressives skewer the Left as well as the Right. Daily Show does it frequently actually. Its just mostly much easier to get a laugh from the Right, though. More surreal and weird.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      The Daily Show? Really? That explains a great deal.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

        I watched the clip from The Daily Show and it was very entertaining, but it was also misleading. In the wind down of the story John Stewart asks:

        “So does the failure of one company discredit the entire idea of a green energy economy? Of course not.”

        Well I gotta say that this is not the only green energy company to fail in recent history. Just look at the last four or five stories posted on this website. And Solyndra is not the first green energy company to recieve federal loans, and then close it’s doors. So to John Sterwart I ask:

        Does the failure of a whole bunch of green energy companies discredit the entire idea of a green energy economy? Of course it does.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Stewart’s statement is not negated by your editorial. And I will bet the accuracy of the Daily Show against anything you got, anytime.

    • Jerk A. Knot

      Stewart is an entertainer. Every thing he says is rooted in satire not reality…. Funny yes. Authoriative not.

      • Rob N. Hood

        Ahhh, therein lies the problem grasshopper. The truth is laid bare, for those with the correct attitude to see, plain as day. You may proceed on the road to wisdom, some day perhaps. But not quite yet obviously.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      You are right. It’s not negated by my comments. It is negated by the reality of the state of the “green energy” jobs sector which seems to be folding like a house of cards.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/11/promises-of-green-jobs-start-withering-on-vine/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
      “Despite billions of dollars in federal investment and cheerleading from President Obama, even the most ardent supporters of a transformed, job-generating energy sector based largely on wind, solar and other renewable sources acknowledge that their dreams have not translated into reality. The records for other countries chasing green employment opportunities have been equally unimpressive.”

      “Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, told MSNBC last month that, despite impassioned support from liberal Democrats and environmentalists, “green jobs” initiatives “have been about a lot of talk, and not a lot has been happening on that.”-”

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/
      “At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.”

      “Evergreen Solar Inc., reportedly received $5.3 million of stimulus cash”…..”The company, once a rock star in the solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection last month.”

      “SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., is also a solar cell company that was spun out of Intel in 2008. In June 2009, SpectraWatt received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package.”….”The company filed for bankruptcy last month.”

  • joe

    Neither “V”, This Robin Hood, nor Neil or others know anything about Chapter 11 bankruptcy and strongly Suggest you research further. There is more forthcoming from the investigators, trustees etc. my friends. Do not speak for which you don’t understand/know. I deal with it daily. Never assume. Facts speak, period. Let the investigation begin! You will be amazed at what will be forthcoming. Looking forward to it. I have access to the filings etc. and find them interesting.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Hey, I was just going on what the story said Joe. I would never claim to know anything about chapter 11 bankruptcy, and as far as I know I have not claimed to know anything about it. I was sticking to the information in the story, so please don’t scold me for it. In my opinion the vested interest is not the Obama contributor, it is the taxpayer. There, is that better?

      You know I have said this on several occasions, but I guess it’s time to say it again; I, NEIL F. AGWD/BSD, do solemnly swear that everything I say here is my opinion. Though my opinion may, most of the time, be backed up by facts they may not always be neccessarily so. I do not lie, but being human I am not incapable of being wrong from time to time. Please feel free to point out anywhere that I am wrong and I will make the neccessary corrections, and apologies. Thank you.

  • Jerk A. Knot

    Neil,

    You did not have to go into all that detail to defend the statement that neither war was illegeal. Congress voted to commit US Troops to both actions. Since the Democratic controlled Congress approved each action both were leagal. There is absoultly no way you can get around it. Oh and if the Congress wanted to stop it they could have at any time….. A simple vote to defund would have done the trick. A simple non binding resoultion to call the troops home would have forced Bush and now Obama to get out because of the pressure it would have generated from the people towards either administration. NOW RNH don’t give me the crap that Congress voted after Powell got up there and lied. Smart people know better. Congress had the same information the President had….. The House and Senate Intelegence committies both have ALL the INFO…

    So Neil… let him spread his propaganda… we will keep pointing it out and ke will keep looking like a fool.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Yeah I know, but I wanted to just tell it like I saw it.

  • Rob N. Hood

    No technically it was not legal. Actually. And yes the Democrats voted mostly for it. That has been a salient point of mine all along in case you didn’t notice… oh right, you didn’t. Both parties are corrupted and we are doomed unless we do something about that. You people need to wake up. And Neil, so humble and seemingly introspective all of a sudden. Interesting… but I’m not buying it. It will take much more than “lip service” that to prove your humanity.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Well if you are basing it on technicality, how is it “technically illegal”? I would guess that you just think it is morally wrong to go to war for any reason, which gives you the moral high ground to proclaim the wars illegal. But just because you are against the war on moral grounds does not make you correct in claiming they are illegal, technically or otherwise. I don’t think you have any legal ground to stand on to say that. Why can’t you just say that you think the wars are morally wrong, and that you object to them on moral grounds? If you did, I could not disrespect that. But to say that they are illegal, and Bush and Cheney are war criminals and should be locked up (I know you didn’t say that but I have heard that from the Left before), is just sad.
      I would equate it to my stand on abortions. And I’ll tell you I disagree with people who say that the doctors who perform abortions are committing murder legally. Murder is a legal term, and as long as abortion is legal you can not call them murderers. I think what they do is morally reprehensible, and that they should not kill innocent babies. But it is legal so the laws as they are say they can.
      So you saying that the wars are illegal is like me saying that abortion is illegal. We both think our respective issues SHOULD be illegal, but neither of them are.
      Or, do you completely disagree with that and have an example as to why you can say the wars are technically illegal?

      • Rob N. Hood

        Look it up. You like doing that. Congress has to declare war for it to be legal. Just because our President’s have’t abided by that for a long time makes it no less illegal. Sure is odd how quickly you look up stuff to support your ides.

        • Rob N. Hood

          Oh, and no I am not saying anything about abortion or your ideas on that, etc. Other than that odd addition, your analogy is pretty good. Some right-winger may choose to disagree wtih you but mostly I agree with you. Except for the “innocent” baby part. Are there babies who aren’t? (Just a chance to be nit-picky…) I am pro-choice of course. Personal freedom and all that…. funny how quickly the right can decide curtailing freedom is good, when they wish to.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            Just using that for an analogy I’m not going there to argue with you about it.

        • Jerk A. Knot

          oops they did….. Where have you been…..

          “(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

          The congress gave him free reign and he used it…. You can argue all day long weather or not he was give too much authority but you can not say he did not have it…. It was left up to him to “deem” how he was going to use it and he did. Congress gave him further powers in Iraq.

          (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

          (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
          (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

          So Shut up RNH he had the power and used it as he deemed nessary. The congress spoke and both times approved the action by an super majority…. This is more evidance how you will lie without remores to get your way….

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

          Ok, I did as you suggested. I looked it up. Dan I apologize in advance for the length.

          http://www.gonzagajil.org/pdf/volume9/Tait/Tait.pdf
          “In conclusion, the US-led coalition was justified in its invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Existing Security Council resolutions and authorization, coupled with Iraq’s continued breach of its obligations under those resolutions, show that there was license to enforce those duties by “all necessary means.” The Security Council never expressly extinguished authorization to use force under these resolutions, nor did it put a time limit on that authority. Resolutions 678 and 687 were still effective in 2002-2003, as evidenced by the language of Resolution 1441.110 Second, because the threat posed by Iraq’s non-compliance with weapons programs was grave, growing, and possibly imminent, the action to remove him from power was justifiable as an act of preemptive self-defense. The US has expressed the view that, in a post-Sept. 11 arena,nations cannot wait for an express declaration of war or other clear signs to designate a threat as “imminent.” Following the practice of numerous states over the past half-century, the US led a coalition to preemptively defend itself and other nations from the possibility of an Iraqi regime armed with WMD. Considering the costs of a WMD attack, regime change was an appropriate response to the Iraqi threat.
          The action against Iraq revives an old and troublesome dilemma for the United Nations and the Security Council. The events of September 11 gave rise to the possibility that acts of war will not be announced by formal declarations, but instead may be delivered by secret and silent terror groups with no ties to any one nation or state. Nations are more aware of their need to curb possible violence, and regimes which support terror groups or terror acts, or which seek weapons of mass-destruction, are now considered greater dangers than ever before. The US-promoted doctrine of pre-emption will force the Security Council to consider the mandates and authorizations it gives in the future, but also magnifies the problems that disagreement between Council Members may produce.

          There’s more but space is limited here.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            Oh, here is more

            “The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.”

            I don’t know about you but I was in the Army during the first gulf war, and this was something I paid very close attention to. I remember the UN resolution 687 being passed and the end of the war, which technically did not end because it was a cease-fire. We would have been completely justified to re-invade Iraq the first time Iraqis painted one of our jets with radar. But did we? No we didn’t, we let the UN talk, and talk, and inspect, and inspect, and talk, and talk, and talk, and then we waited for resolution, after resolution, after resolution, after resolution, after resolution, 17 times before we acted. I’d say we showed amazing restraint! All we needed to go in there was a violation of the cease-fire. Period. You can argue up and down and side to side but there was always justification in the violation of the cease-fire from day 1.

  • joe

    Neil, don’t let this “Munchkin” (RNH) bother you or get you “blinking.” I notice a pause in your comments, a blink perhaps? Continue to stand firm with your convictions. I seriously doubt you agree with RNH?? Never show your hand to an adversary and take them on “eye to eye,” and no blinking which shows vulnerability. Your adversary is taught to see these signals and will take advantage. (Alinsky was their teacher). Know his teachings well. Little suggestion from a “simple” Joe. Look forward to reading your posts and your desire to keep everyone updated. Relax.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Sorry Joe you lost me on that one. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • Rob N. Hood

    That’s “Joe” for you… oh well. A nice right-wing pep-talk never hurt anyone, right? Well, maybe that’s incorrect actually…. C’mon Neil. Show no weakness, no humbleness, no humanity. Smash your enemies to pieces. Stay the course… blah blah blah.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      What do you want warm fuzzies?

  • Rob N. Hood

    He went after you not me. You were the one who complained about it, not me. Is that what you want? (answer is yes; if it comes from another like-minded soul- all others need not apply).

  • Joe

    Neil, they want “What they want,” taking no prisoners. Pure and simple. I don’t give, as you state, “Warm and fuzzies.” By they way, I’m not after you but with you. That is an Alinsky tactic used by the left. Read his book. Have for years. Easier to take on your far left wing opponents. Get in their mind and you will see how they think and what their next move may be as they are confronted. RNH just confirmed my statement.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      The warm fuzzies comment was for RNH not you Joe, and it seems to have upset him for some reason. I really didn’t mean anything by it. But whatever!

  • Rob N. Hood

    Alinsky… another straw man to whip up a deluded frenzy. Wasn’t it you Joe who eluded to “taking no prisoners”? Yes. Projecting your isssues onto others is a trait of the Right. It’s dysfunctional and unhelpful. And I made my comments for fun, cuz you two were being funny with your little spat. Knew you’d make up. The Right’s main strength is it’s ability, and need for, loyalty and gang mentality. I wish the Left had more of that… but then again it would make us more like you probably. The Left doesn’t really possess that level of gang mentality except for its extremities, such as anarchists and totalitarianisms. No, scratch the anarchists. They don’t have that kind of rigid organization either, for very long anyway.

  • Joe

    “The left doesn’t really possess that level of gang activity” Your words RNH! Take a good look at what the gentile liberals did in Madison, Wisconsin. Saul taught you well, or was it Obama’s minions? Soro’s perhaps? Who knows? Only you.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Ahhh, the same old horses trotted out for show…. and the “gentile” liberals (non-Jewish?!) in WI were average working folks, mainly as far as I could tell, engaging in democracty as is their right as tax-paying voting citizens. Funny how the tea party crowd describes themselves that way, and then turns around to describe others in much different language. Oh well. Do you, Joe, think I needed an expert talking point to submit this comment….or the above comment. I don’t know whether to laugh or feel complimented. Who knows? Only you.

  • Joe

    So you condone violence to get your way as well as property damage to private/public property? You actually condone childish acts? When did you quit beating your wife?

  • Rob N. Hood

    There’s always a few bad apples in every group, especially if agents provocutuers are amonst them, which is often the case. But no prooof of course in this instance. Be that as it may, no I don’t condone violence, I’m a Liberal after all and we abhore violence in any form, unlike many on the Right. But we all know democracy is messy, as are many things in life. There are always gray areas to be dealt with and contextualize. The world is not black and white.

    • Jerk A. Knot

      AH another lie of the left….. Dhould we start with the bombings of federal buildings in the 60’s or maybe something more recient like the recient SEIU beat downs of people protesting them…

  • Rob N. Hood

    Or how about Timmy M. the right winger and perpetrator of the greatest terrorist act in the USA, that is until 2001? Or Kent State if you want to talk about the 60’s. This is silly tit for tat; but the right wing wins out on the violence scale every time. Is what it is.

  • Joe

    Suggest that Mr. Hood should research liberal violence in the last 50 years versus conservatives. He would have a rude wake up. Will leave that up to him. Hood, you have an assignment. Please get back to us with the findings of fact. We are waiting.

  • Rob N. Hood

    I don’t need to. Been paying attention my whole life. Suggest you take your own advice.

  • Joe

    In otherwards you are less then 20 years old. You never read history.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Sure Joe, ye of great and powerful mind…. I’m probably older than you, but just sayin’… now you can come up with a new and improved insult.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Silence… from the great and powerful OZ. How old are ye Joe? Bet I got ya beat… but then you’d have to come up with a new insult, and excuse.

  • Joe

    Must say that I have white hair and a worn body but must say taking on a person like you is no problem and that is an understatement to say the least. You are an opponent that has no fight due to no facts behind you. I’m used to facts, not bull. Try me with a factual statement and you may have civil discourse. Have yet to see it.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Oh, good one. The old- you got nothing so I beat that no matter what ploy. Real sly. Not. I already know the rules- no matter what comes out of you (and other Joe and Neil approved like-minded souls) = Fact. Everything from me, just the opposite. If it wasn’t this way , I might be more inclinced to make a greater effort. But you don’t, so I don’t.

  • Joe

    Simply give factual answers is all that has ever asked, however you consistently avoid and continue to avoid the subject at hand. Dodge and weave, so Yes, nobody will make “A greater effort” to respond. To what?

  • Rob N. Hood

    Oh, “facts” like “you never read history”?! Wow… nice right-wing “facts” you got there.

  • Joe

    Sir Hood has bantered for over 30 plus days. Ok, no answer to a question raised. No problem. Obviously he cannot answer.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Look who can count and keep track so diligently, when it suits him. What was the question? Can’t remember. Probably answered it anyway, I usually do.

  • joe

    Took math in eighth grade down by the river.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.