Tag Archives: Scandal

The Feminization of The National Football League

imagesCAL5LHAZ
Only in the 2013 version of today’s NFL can a 6’5 300 pound grown man be considered a victim of bullying. What Richie Incognito did was certainly not appropriate but it was also ridiculous of the league to suspend him. Using the N-word and jokingly threatening a player’s mother is definitely in bad taste but does it warrant removing a player’s right to make a living? Jonathan Martin could have solved this problem the way most 300 pound lineman would have; by giving Incognito a taste of his own medicine. He could have lit him up in practice or popped him in the nose to let him know he wasn’t playing. These are grown men not 8 year old school children?

So what’s next is Richie Incognito supposed to make a public apology? Maybe tell the team and the media he will seek counseling and sensitivity training? Give me a break and more importantly, give Mr. Incognito a break as well.

The NFL over the past 10 years or so has really changed. The players are a lot bigger, taller, and physically stronger than they have ever been. There are linebackers now that can run as fast as receivers and quarterbacks that are faster than the fastest running backs. The game of professional football is changing.

New rules have slowly started to take over the game and have made it less violent and more cautious in the process. No longer on kickoffs can you have more than a 3 person wedge. No longer can you hit a quarterback above the shoulders or below the knees. No longer can you hit a defenseless receiver coming over the middle to grab a leaping catch. No longer can a running back lower his head and flatten a would-be tackler. The rules have gotten so bad many fans and even players are wondering if they should just put on mini-skirts and play two hand touch?

Back in the old days you could clothesline a guy and try to knock his head off. If you tried to make a leaping catch over the middle as a wide receiver you knew you were going to pay for it. The NFL back then had guys that would play with broken fingers, broken toes, even broken arms or legs. Now if one of these high priced Pre- Madonna’s has a hang nail or pulls a hamstring they are out for the rest of the game.

Football is a violent game. Players know and understand the risk that they take and get paid handsomely for it. The NFL is more of a business these days than a game of football. There are millions upon millions of dollars flying around on the field and the owners and the league are trying to protect their investments. Every time a player makes a vicious hit he is either fined or penalized.

The NFL in 2013 is a shadow of its former self. Political correctness and tolerance have now hi-jacked the ultimate tough mans game. It has become a corporate entertainment business much like Hollywood with the players playing the part of the actors.

Professional football is still a great sport to watch but it is less exciting now than in years past. The Super Bowl is still the largest and most watched sporting event in the world. Millions of people tune in to see the newest commercials and the elaborate half time performances; let’s just hope there remains more action and excitement on the field.

Darrell Issa Takes Jabs At Elijah Cummings At Irs Hearing 7/18/2013

51e8520126ece2a53600008c

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) were sparring a bit in the IRS hearings today. While that in itself isn’t unexpected, the terms used were at least a little amusing.

Even more amusing was the report from MSNBC on the incident:

At the beginning of the hearing, Cummings called Issa’s remarks “unsubstantiated nonsense,” adding the Republican rushed to his previous conclusions “with no evidence whatsoever.”
A bit later, Issa skewered the Maryland Dem, arguing he never said it came from the White House, only from Washington, D.C. “We now see it today leading to Washington…Although I expect the right to immediately say it leads to the White House, I’m always shocked when the ranking member seems to want to say, like a little boy whose hand has been caught in a cookie jar, ‘What hand? What cookie?’ I’ve never said it leads to the White House.”

The argument at hand was about reports that surfaced the night before the hearing that initially stated that the investigation into discrimination by the IRS against conservative organizations seeking non-profit status had lead to DC. Later, “DC” was reported as “The White House”, however exactly how that happen isn’t exactly clear. Either way, Issa wasn’t going to stand for having Cummings make accusations that he was the source of those statements. As for the “hands in the cookie jar” comment, that was presumably referring to Cummings’ attempt to deflect blame for the apparently unethical actions of the IRS workers in charge of handling non-profit applications. Regardless, Issa did apologize for his comment later, stating that is was turn of phrase from his childhood, nothing more.

Easy fix to IRS corruption

IRS

Sir John Dalberg-Acton famously observed, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No federal agency enjoys more power than the “absolute power” wielded by the Internal Revenue Service. It’s little wonder, then, that under this power-drunk Obama regime, the IRS has become “corrupted absolutely.” It’s become the hammer to this president’s favorite nail: political dissent.

The bureaucratic cat’s out of the bag, and the evidence is undeniable. The Obama IRS has been illegally targeting conservative, Christian and Jewish groups and individuals for political retaliation, intimidation and, ultimately, destruction. These revelations have spurred calls for criminal prosecution and even impeachment. Still, little has been said about how to prevent such Stalinist abuses of power in the future.

We’ve been over-thinking the problem. Sometimes complicated questions come with easy answers. I wish I could take credit for it, but while I was participating in a recent meeting in Washington, D.C., Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, hit on the simple solution. “The Constitution is a great place to go in order to rein in the rampant and repeated abuses at the IRS,” he suggested. Namely, the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No individual – and especially no federal agency – is above the law. Regrettably, and largely through both citizen and government acquiescence, the IRS has been brandishing arbitrary and extra-constitutional authority, unchecked, for well over a century.

Imagine if the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, or the ATF suddenly began “searching” and “seizing” the “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” of millions of U.S. citizens every year without a warrant – without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that any criminal or civil violation had occurred. People would be outraged, and for good reason. Such actions would rightly and universally be decried as unconstitutional. The lawsuits would fly, heads would roll and the courts would immediately shut down such “unreasonable searches and seizures.” This is exactly the kind of government tyranny our founders endeavored to thwart.

So why has the IRS been allowed to do just that – to violate, systemically and systematically, the Fourth Amendment? How is it that this one federal agency, with neither probable cause nor a warrant, is permitted to invade your privacy and confiscate your “houses, papers and effects” on a whim? How is it that if you fail to comply with their warrantless searches and seizures, they have the authority to ruin you financially and even throw you in prison?

No warrant? No problem. When the IRS arbitrarily and capriciously says “jump,” America opens its doors wide and says, “how high?” Is this the IRS or the ISS? Either way, it’s time that “we the people” put an end to this unconstitutional abuse of power.

At least some good has come from Mr. Obama’s IRS-gate scandal. It’s exposed the unprecedented depths to which corruption has burrowed its way from the top down. It’s also underscored the autocratic nature of the contemporary IRS beast. It’s unified many Republicans, Democrats and independents around this fundamental reality: America must de-politicize the IRS.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle love to pay lip service to a need for “tax reform.” Well, honorable sirs and madams, put up or shut up. It’s time for a new federal “Taxpayer Bill of Rights.” A centerpiece to such legislation must be the simple codification of that which the Fourth Amendment already mandates; namely, that, when conducting “searches and seizures” (aka, audits), the IRS must adhere to the same U.S. Constitution that restricts every other federal agency.

Such a bill, notes Phillips, “would codify as federal law that no IRS audit (or any other agency audit) of a person, organization or business could be conducted without first having the IRS agent (or agent of the agency conducting the audit) to prepare an affidavit that is sworn to in front of a federal judge, federal magistrate or a tax court judge that states with specificity why there is probable cause to believe the audit will result in either the discovery of criminal activities or the discovery of civil wrong doing. It will be the functional equivalent of a search warrant.”

Phillips is on to something big here. Especially when you consider this last minor factoid: The IRS is also the OEA: the “Obamacare Enforcement Agency.”

If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, then nothing will.

What do you get when you cross one tyrannical, hyper-politicized bureaucratic beast with another?

You get tyranny on steroids. You also get one happy Barack Hussein Obama.

Contact your legislators and A) respectfully request that they re-constitutionalize the IRS; B) that the IRS be required to observe the Fourth Amendment; and C) that they hold this president accountable for his unprecedented and despicable abuse of executive authority.

Finally, request that Congress pass a new Taxpayer Bill of Rights that covers “all of the above.”

Demand Answers

demandanswers

For all the complaints about Mitch McConnell that have floated around over the years, one thing can be said about him now. At least he is attempting to appear like he is standing on principles, and demanding that there are real answers given on one of the scandals currently dogging the Obama Administration. Whether or not he sticks to his guns remains to be seen. At least this is a start.

Benghazi Testimony: What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?

ignoring benghazi

Today the Right watched as the Left ignored the beginning of shocking and damning testimony from eyewitnesses on the ground during the 9/11 terror attacks in Benghazi. Testimony from Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya confirmed what we on the right have known almost from the very beginning: there was no protest. The YouTube video, for which its creator is still unjustly imprisoned, had nothing to do with the attack. Help was ordered to stand down not once, but twice. The Obama Administration knew this was an act of terror from the beginning.

The question is, if a Fact Tree falls in Leftist Forest, does it make a sound? While celebrations of vindication are beginning to stir among the Right and people are beginning to speculate on the political fallout for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others who were complicit in abandoning four Americans to die and then lying to the American public about it, I have to wonder what difference, at this point, does it make? When has the Left cared for facts? When has the Left embraced reality?

Indeed, the “coverage” in the mainstream media has been mostly devoted to smearing the whistleblowers and running cover for the Obama Regime. Since the “blame an obscure YouTube video” narrative has failed, the Left is now pretending it’s rational to blame sequestration (never mind the fact that it took place nearly six months after the attacks) for inadequate security though the State Department confirmed “budget cuts” had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Left in this country and their pet media will stop at nothing to ensure Obama and Clinton face no consequences for their corrupt, deadly actions.

The sad fact is, though it is imperative that the truth come out, we no longer live in a country where truth matters. While there was once a time that scandals of half this magnitude brought down presidencies, the Benghazi debacle will be but another notch in Obama’s belt of scandals he’s emerged from unscathed.

Still, all is not lost. While the impeachment he’s earned is little more than a pipe dream, we can use this disaster of a president to motivate us to crush the evil that is leftism. We can do the job the media refuses to, and hammer home the reality of the corruption, the devaluing of life, and the abandonment of Americans and American values that has been the hallmark of this presidency. We can remind midterm voters in 2014 and presidential voters in 2016 of what came to light today in addition to Obama’s countless other failures in hopes that, perhaps, it will eventually make a difference after all.

Jack Abramoff Wants Congress to Come Clean

Jack Abramoff

There’s nothing like spending 43 months in prison for fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy in connection with Congressional influence–peddling to make you an advocate of political contribution reform.

Notorious Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is back on what the late Watergate scandal participant, John Ehrlichman might term a “modified limited hang out” book tour.

Abramoff contends that Washington equals swamp and the only reason he went to jail, for what he claims is standard operating procedure, is Jack made the mistake of raising his head too far above the scum line.

Jack’s obvious continuing pride in his accomplishments on behalf of his clients is cause to doubt sincere contrition on his part. And Abramoff appears blissfully unaware that the reputation he earned and scandal he created are in large part responsible for the GOP losing the House in 2006 — or if not unaware, he’s certainly unrepentant.

Still, Jack took advantage of the “me time” the feds gave him in Cumberland Prison to propose two reforms to clean up some of the mess he reveled in before his unfortunate incarceration.

First, he recommends that lobbyists, recipients of federal contracts and anyone who benefits from public funds be prohibited from making contributions or providing gifts to those in power. This alone covers everyone from General Dynamics to residents of Section 8 housing. Then he adds to his impossible dream by calling for a lifetime ban on lobbying by Members of Congress and their staff.

Conservatives automatically suspect any contribution prohibition because contributions are a form of speech. Yet I’ve never been entirely sold on the idea that semi–Socialist George Soros’ speech should forever be exponentially louder than mine, given the disparity in our bank accounts.

Counter–balancing conservatives like the Koch brothers grant what little peace of mind I have. (For conservatives the best of an uncertain situation would probably be to return to the unlimited contributions regime that existed before the “reforms” with the addition of unlimited and immediate disclosure of the donor.)

Campaign contributions from companies and individuals that take government money are inherently incestuous. It’s quite possible that most of the money that comprises the contribution originated as tax dollars before it was washed through the contractor’s accounts.

That’s one reason I like the idea. The other is the restriction is voluntary: don’t take the government check and you can contribute to your heart’s content. Even those affected by the ban face only a limited imposition on political speech. They can still give to state and local candidates, they can give to parties and they can spend their money on independent expenditures.
Speech bans already exist without undermining the Constitution. For example, individuals with a Top Secret clearance are prohibited from discussing the secrets in public, which is a limit on speech. Judges aren’t allowed to discuss cases while the trial is in progress, which is another voluntary limit on speech. So how does the prohibition on contributions differ?

Precedent for the equally voluntary lobby ban already exists in a limited form. Congressmen, Senators and staff are currently required to wait one year before they can board the lobby gravy train. Abramoff’s idea just extends the time limit to forever.
Politicians become lobbyists after leaving office because they’ve been captured by Washington and joining the permanent political class just seems like the thing to do. The constituents, who were fine as long as they were providing votes, are no longer up to snuff when it comes to being neighbors.

This voluntary rule — combined with term limits, which has also has a new supporter in Abramoff — would do much toward ridding us of the professional politician who’s only goal in life is serving in big government where he can “be a positive force for change.”

Three good ideas, regardless of the source, that have as much chance of being enacted as Ron Paul does of being President.

Frankly Barney, You Won’t Be Missed

When I learned Cong. Barney Frank (D–Libertine) was retiring after 30 years in the House, my first thought was don’t let the door hit you in the behind. That’s because Frank personifies everything that’s wrong with the political class currently infesting our nation’s capitol.

Frank is morally, politically and ethically corrupt. This Democrat party leader helped produce a nation that’s economically crippled and morally adrift. He may be the Congressman from Taxachusetts, but everyone is enjoying his legacy.

When the first warnings regarding the housing bubble were sounded Frank was rabid in his defense of federally supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s ‘come one, come all’ lending practices. Frank stated, “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

What Frank didn’t say was that he had used his influence as a member of the House Financial Services Committee to land his homosexual lover a job at Fannie Mae. So while Frank was rolling our dice his boyfriend was one of the croupiers.

Herman Cain may have been squeezin’ the Charmin while he was head of the National Restaurant Association, but I guarantee he didn’t twist arms at Denny’s to get them to hire his sweetie.

Unfortunately, Frank’s roll of the dice came up snake eyes for the rest of us as we continue to endure the Great Recession.
Are foreclosed homes lowering your property values and contributing to the decline of your neighborhood? Thank Barney Frank.

Are you having trouble refinancing because loan documentation is causing you to jump through hoop after hoop? Is getting a loan to buy a new home impossible because down payment requirements have skyrocketed? Or is selling your home difficult because every appraisal is low–balled? Thank Barney Frank.

Are your annual dues increasing while your homeowner’s association is simultaneously cutting back on services due to budget deficits caused by foreclosures? Thank Barney Frank.

Is your retirement nest egg now your retirement embryo after your 401k tanked? Thank Barney Frank.
Lacking any moral compass, Frank doesn’t feel any shame over what his advocacy and legislative record caused. He doesn’t fade into the background. Instead, as Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, he co–authors the Frank–Dodd financial reform legislation that’s supposed to repair what he’s destroyed.

Only in Democrat party politics does the master of the disaster get to write the legislation that’s supposed to clean up the mess. At least the captain of the Titanic had the decency to go down with his ship. Frank would have demanded a seat in the lifeboat so he could direct the rescue.

But why shouldn’t Frank feel entitled? His longevity is a product of a gerrymandered district that made him impervious to public opinion. Frank’s first scandal involved putting a live–in homosexual hustler and convicted drug dealer on his House office payroll. Frank used his position to fix parking tickets for his roommate and later lied to a Virginia prosecutor who was investigating the prostitution ring the hustler was running out of Frank’s townhouse.

Then Frank finds a new boyfriend and puts him on the job at Fannie Mae. Now Frank’s latest paramour is growing marijuana in their home, but who knows, maybe Massachusetts voters believe progressing from prostitution ring landlord to in–home illegal agriculture is progress.

Barney Frank’s personal and political record is a living endorsement of term limits. He survived for 30 years because his district was drawn to prevent Republicans from running and Democrat political insiders prevented primary opponents from challenging him.

Term limits would prevent much of that insider gaming of the political system. There is simply no reason for someone to be in Congress for 30 years.

And please spare me the “seniority means we have more clout” argument. Seniority rewards longevity, not productivity. If your elected representative is able, your district will have influence.

There is a perfect example near where I live in Virginia. Del. Jackson Miller (R–Manassas) was just elected Majority Whip by the Republican caucus in the House of Delegates. This puts him number four in the House hierarchy, yet he’s only been in office since 2006. Miller didn’t have to get arthritis in service of the public before his merit was recognized.

The average tenure of a CEO in business is six years; surely a Congressman can do enough to have a post office named after him in twelve.

Good riddance to Barney Frank. Now if only two or three hundred members would follow him out the door there might be a chance to change the incestuous culture in Washington.

Allen West – "Media is trying to put me against Cain"

Early Wednesday morning Rep. Allen West was asked to comment on the latest Herman Cain scandal while being interviewed on the WMAL Morning Majority  radio show.  “Beyond reassessing his campaign, he probably needs to understand that he is a distracter for what’s going on right now and we should move on,” Rep. West said. “That would be my advice to him.”

West’s comments immediately went viral and became the subject of ire for many conservatives who felt West had betrayed Cain and fallen prey to the liberal media’s game of Republican bashing.  Several hours later West released this statement via his Facebook account:

“The media is trying to put me against Herman Cain. I guess its good for them to see two black men against each other. The facts are I am not telling Cain to step down. That is his decision and his only. What I said is the media focus on these incidents and “alleged affairs” are a distraction, and we as a country need to move on from this subject and get the focus on what the GOP contenders can seriously do for this country.”

With Republican and conservative voters already extremely sensitive about the primary race and the state of GOP unity in general, West and other politicians will be treading lightly in the coming weeks.

MSM Ignores Latest Solyndra Scandal

 By now everyone knows that the Obama administration, through the Department of Energy (DOE), asked Solyndra to delay laying off 180 employees until November 3, 2010, the day after midterm congressional elections.

A memo prepared by GOP staff at the House Energy and Commerce Committee cites an October, 2010, email from an unnamed Solyndra investment adviser to another unidentified investment adviser. The email said DOE officials were pushing “very hard” to delay announcing the layoffs until November 3, 2010, – the day after the midterm elections. The email said, “Oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.”

Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison told the DOE that he had “received some press inquiries about rumors of problems,” and also notified DOE that he wanted to tell employees about upcoming layoffs on October 28, 2010. According to the GOP memo, Harrison’s email was forwarded to Jonathan Silver, then head of the DOE Loan Programs Office, and to Energy Secretary Chu’s chief of staff. Silver forwarded the email to Ron Klain, then Vice President Biden’s chief of staff, as well as Carol Browner, then head of the White House climate change office.

An October 30, 2010, email in which an unidentified Argonaut executive tells Ken Levit, director of George Kaiser’s charity, “No announcement till after elections at doe request.” was released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight subcommittee. Argonaut Private Equity, BTW, is the investment firm that backed Solyndra and is owned by Obama fundraiser George Kaiser.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week that GOP lawmakers have “cherry-picked” documents, trying to create controversy over a decision-making process that the White House insists involved no political influence.

While The Washington Post, no bastion of conservatism, gave front-page coverage to the latest Solyndra scandal development, the MSM ignored the layoff delay request. ABC, CBS, and NBC all ignored this latest Solyndra development in their November 15, 2011, evening newscasts, and on their November 16, 2011, morning programs. Both Fox’s Fox and Friends and MSNBC’s Morning Joe commented on the lack of coverage.The MSM has a history of ignoring Obama scandals.

Bialek's Ex-Boyfriend Victor Jay Zuckerman has Troubles of His Own

Sharon Bialek’s ex-boyfriend Victor Jay Zuckerman, appeared recently with Attorney Gloria Allred to corroborate her accusation that Herman Cain groped her in 1997. Bialek’s credibility has been called into question by some due to extensive legal and financial troubles.

An examination of Illinois court record’s reveals, however, that Zuckerman has bigger financial and legal problems than she does. Court documents (1:10-cv-07844 DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION) reveal that Zuckerman, on Sep 15th of 2010, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Western District of Louisiana. His creditors include, among others, Stratford Center (with claims of $675,000.00), his ex-wife (with claims of $89,000.00), and the IRS (with claims of $50,000.00).

The lawsuit filed in Illinois, is an effort by Stratford Medical Center to recover funds from Stratford Pediatric, the practice owned by Zukerman. Documents in the case state that “In May 2010 (after the bench trial, but before the judgment was entered) Stratford Pediatric sold its assets to Central DuPage Hospital for $333,000.00 in cash. This money was mostly transferred to Zuckerman’s personal accounts. He soon went on a gambling and day trading spree and lost all of the money. In July 2010, Zuckerman moved to Louisiana.”

Herman Cain Releases Statement About Anonymous Accusers


Below is a statement Herman Cain released today in regards to anonymous accusers.  No mention was made of Sharon Bialek.

I am a serious person, seeking the opportunity to do a serious and very important job. Our nation has very serious problems, particularly of an economic nature, and Barack Obama does not have the skill, knowledge or will to solve them.

I do.

Unfortunately, the media-driven process by which one must seek this opportunity is fundamentally unserious. I have touched on this before – the emphasis on “gaffes,” gotcha questions and time devoted to trivial nonsense – and everyone knows the process only became further detached from relevance this week as the media published anonymous, ancient, vague personal allegations against me.

Once this kind of nonsense starts, the media’s rules say you have to act in a certain way. I am well aware of these rules. And I refuse to play by them.

There are several reasons for this. One is that, lest anyone forget, we actually have serious matters to talk about. Since the media went bananas over this so-called story, my schedule has not changed in the slightest. I have continued to make all planned public appearances. I have continued to answer questions about my 9-9-9 tax reform plan. I have continued to do everything else that our strategy proscribes.

Another reason I refuse to play by these rules is that, by doing it my way, I’m getting much better results. My fundraising has skyrocketed since all this nonsense began. Just this weekend, the Washington Post has come out with a new poll – taken since all this started – showing me in the lead nationally, with my numbers on the rise.

The media may be obsessed with this business, but the voters are not. And I am not.

But there’s another crucially important reason I refuse to play by these rules: These rules stink. Can the process by which we pick the leader of our nation be any more absurd? I’m not talking about the primary process or the role of the electorate. There is nothing wrong with that. I am talking about the media’s trivializing of such an important matter.

Consider: I held various executive positions in corporate America for several decades. I had thousands of employees working for me. I can’t even begin to recall how many conversations I had with people during that time, how many directives I gave, how much friendly banter might have taken place.

I also had to make tough decisions during these years. I turned around a poorly performing region for Burger King, then turned around a struggling Godfather’s Pizza organization. At some point during a career like this, someone will not like things you do, or how you do it. Someone will complain.

That is just the nature of things if you’ve ever done much in your life.

So once the editors of Politico started looking for people who would make claims against me, their chances of finding a few takers were probably about 100 percent. These people will not give their names. The so-called “witnesses” who purportedly corroborated their stories also will not give their names. That’s about what you would expect when people are engaging in a “hatchet job,” as it’s been described by Joseph Fassler, who was chairman of the National Restaurant Association board when I was there.

It’s easy to make accusations when, by virtue of your anonymity, you don’t have to be held accountable for the claims you’re making. It’s easy to publish them when, like Politico, you don’t follow basic rules of journalism by naming your sources or giving any details whatsoever about what supposedly happened.

But the process by which we choose our presidents has become so warped that, when something like this happens, the media and political strategists start grading you on whether you play an absurd game by their absurd rules.

When someone stops you on the street and hits you with an accusation like this, they subsequently write a story about the look in your eyes, and how many seconds it took you to speak some words in response. They go to “crisis management experts” who offer the usual sage wisdom about “getting all the information out” – as if you can get any “information” out (aside from telling them nothing happened, which they don’t want to hear) in response to allegations that are unsourced and nonspecific.

Then, when you haven’t “calmed the firestorm” – if only because the people wielding the blow-torches have no intention of putting them out – more experts are put on the air to say this proves you are “not ready for prime time.”

Maybe that would matter if I was trying out for the cast of Saturday Night Live. But this should be a slightly more serious undertaking than that.

Contrary to the belief of experts, so wise and learned in the ways of politics, I do know what the established rules say I am supposed to do. I simply refuse to do it. That’s because the rules are ridiculous, and they produce leaders like Barack Obama, who play the political game like experts but govern like complete incompetents.

The nation needs its tax structure reformed, its spending brought under control, its debt reduced and its overall governing structure made far more responsive to the needs of the people. The nation needs many other problems addressed. If it’s OK with the American people, I would like to address them.

If the media want to continue talking about nonsense, that’s fine. I’m not going to join them. It doesn’t look like the citizenry plans to join them either.

Solyndra Scandal Update


Just so you know, Solyndra was the dream of Chris Gronet, who received a Ph.D. in semiconductor processing at Stanford University, and had spent 11 years as an executive at Applied Materials Inc. He adopted as the company’s motto, “What we do here will someday change the world.” He was forced out in July, 2010.

In September, 2011, I posted an article about Solyndra, the government’s rush to back loans, its bankruptcy, and the beginning of the investigation into its activities. I now propose to update the investigation. However, my update may not be current since new revelations are uncovered literally daily.

Details of the Scandal

President Barack Obama is treating the entire Solyndra scandal as an irrelevant non-event, and is being (uncharacteristically for him) very silent about it. Records show that Obama was briefed about Solyndra and other “green” projects, indicating that he was specifically warned about the hazards of expediting the “green energy” loan program. Among those warning Obama were Larry Summers and Tim Geithner (see below), but he ignored their advice and green lighted the loans.

Obama Knew About Solyndra

Before Solyndra went bankrupt, President Obama was warned of risks of the Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program. At a meeting with Obama in late October, 2010, Lawrence H. Summers, Steven Chu, and Timothy F. Geithner expressed concerns that the selection process for federal loan guarantees wasn’t rigorous enough. Chu wanted less scrutiny from the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Still, the Obama administration went ahead with loan guarantee program as part of the 2009 stimulus law, despite disagreements on the program.

Administration officials took their opposing views to President Obama in October 2010. A memorandum, drafted by Lawrence Summers, explained different concerns and options to fix a “broken process” for getting loans approved. A July, 2010, report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) found that DOE committed to back loans without completing required studies of market, legal, and technical issues.

White House e-mails show Obama aides discussing Solyndra’s finances and fears that the loan could be a political embarrassment. One e-mail suggested that DOE appeared “ill-equipped” to identify worthy “green” companies.

DOE Loan Guarantee Program Head Resigns

Jonathan Silver, head of DOE’s loan program announced on Thursday, October 6, 2011, that he was stepping down. DOE officials said that Silver decided to leave the job in July because funding for the loan guarantee program was expiring. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee said that Silver’s resignation failed to address concerns that other troubled loans may be among 38 projects the program that he led has funded.

Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) asked Silver why the government chose to invest in Solyndra’s “thin-film” solar-panel technology. Solyndra’s technology is one of the most complex and riskiest forms of solar technology. Silver dodged the question, then said, “I’m not a solar technical analyst.” Solyndra’s “thin-film” technology, said Bilbray, is rare and still in the early stages of development, making it a risky investment, but that fact didn’t stop DOE from putting taxpayer dollars at risk. Silver argued that the US needs to invest in solar energy in order to “keep up with China.” While China subsidizes its own solar industry, almost none of the Chinese funding of $30 billion per year goes to thin-film technology.

Solyndra Executives Plead Fifth Amendment

Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W. G. Stover repeatedly refused to answer questions about Solyndra’s DOE loan guarantee, citing the US Constitution’s fifth amendment. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) asked, “I want to ask Mr. Harrison if he thinks the American people who invested over a half a billion dollars deserve to know what happened to that money?” Harrison and Stover declined to answer, invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. The CEO and CFO of bankrupt Solyndra sat before a Congressional committee and invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, rather than explain how they blew through $535 million in taxpayer money.

How Solyndra Spent Tax Money

Bilbray, while in his office, questioned Solyndra’s choice of land on which to build its new facility. The site chosen was one of the most expensive pieces of land in the country. Solyndra chose to build on 30 acres of farmland in Fremont, Calif., on a site that was classified by the EPA as a “non-attainment zone,” meaning that air quality did not meet certain federal standards. He also questioned Solyndra’s decision to build a brand-new manufacturing facility, citing the availability of several buildings in the area. The going rate for industrial properties in Silicon Valley, where Solyndra built, is the fourth-most expensive in the U.S.

The new factory that Solyndra built with public money had a conference room with glass walls that turned a smoky gray to conceal the room’s occupants. Hastily purchased state-of-the-art equipment ended up being sold for pennies on the dollar, still in its plastic wrap.

As Solyndra’s new $344 million factory went up near its leased plant in Fremont, CA, workers watched as pallets of unsold solar panels accumulated. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn said, “After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right. Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy.” Putting some work on a 24-hour, seven-day schedule, the facility was up and ready for equipment installation in 10 months. The project employed more than 3,000 union construction workers.

When completed at an estimated cost of $733 million, Solyndra’s new facility covered 300,000 square feet, the equivalent of five football fields. It had robots that whistled Disney tunes, spa-like showers with liquid-crystal displays of water temperature, and glass-walled conference rooms. The facility had 19 loading docks, four electric car charging stations, and landscaping of wild grass and a rock garden. An automated rail system moved parts through the assembly process. Robots that resembled “a big freezer with wheels” maneuvered around the factory transporting panels from one machine to another. The Disney tunes alerted workers of the robots’ presence.

Waste?

Tax-payer money wasted? It sure sounds like. And all at the alter of “green, renewable energy.” But this is what we have come to expect from the Obama administration.

But that’s just my opinion.

Operation Fast and Furious – What a Screw up this was by the ATF

Operation Fast and Furious – established in 2009, and Project Gunrunner, established in 2005, were ATF programs aimed at stopping guns from getting into the hands of criminals in Mexico. As with many “projects” that this administration has been involved with have failed – so did this one. The goal was to track the flow of arms and determine how the market functioned, but yet again it has had an unsurprisingly disastrous effect.

This failed program allowed U.S. officials to permit “straw purchasers” to buy guns – hundreds of them at once, sometimes – and then to sell them to Mexican drug cartels while the ATF sat idly by, doing nothing to stop it. Oddly enough the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) leads the way in another program that is called “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy.”

This program is aimed at stopping the very same act that the ATF themselves are involved in now – straw purchasing. The term straw purchase – is an illegal firearm purchase where the actual buyer of the gun, being unable to pass the required federal background check or desiring to not have his or her name associated with the transaction, uses a proxy buyer who can pass the required background check to purchase the firearm for him/her. It is highly illegal and punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison.

The ATF program failed because they were unable to keep track of “all” the guns that they sold to the Mexican drug cartels. And now some of these guns have shown up in crimes, murders, etc., some of which Americans have been killed.

The Center for Public Integrity, reported that 1,765 guns were knowingly sold as part of “Fast and Furious.” Another 300 or so were sold before the operation started. Of these more than 2,000 guns, fewer than 800 have been recovered. Two of the guns recovered were found at the site of the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, in a region known as Peck Canyon, on the U.S. side of the border between Nogales, Mexico, and Tucson, Ariz.

Special Agent John Dodson of the ATF was among many field agents who advised superiors that the covert operation was unwise. Their concerns were not acted on, and the operation continued. After Terry’s murder, Dodson blew the whistle, first to the Justice Department, then to Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Grassley has questioned Attorney General Eric Holder, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Republican Darrell Issa, is now engaged in hearings on the case.

So far, Holder has denied any knowledge of the program, but Republicans are wise to look for a smoking gun – literally. They’ve called for numerous documents relating to the operation. A person would think that someone had to know about this project, and if it’s the highest levels of the Justice Department, then heads there should roll.

This ordeal reminds me of a movie in the late 90’s called “Black Dog” a movie about illegal gun shipments. In the movie an ATF agent Tobolowsky really gets on the nerves of the FBI agents he’s working with. After FBI’s Agent Ford has had enough he say’s to ATF agent Tobolowsky “ATF. What does that stand for, anyways? Alcohol, tobacco, and f****-ups?” It’s amazing how the creators of the movie Black Dog, 13 years earlier hit the nail on the head.

« Older Entries