Peter Schweizer Exposes More of Obama's Green Corruption

Yesterday, I posted a piece about this weekend's episode of 60 Minutes on CBS which will highlight insider trading on Capitol Hill and showcases the new book written by Governor Palin's adviser, Peter Schweizer.

Today, Schweizer released an excerpt from his new book that will also be available in this weeks edition of Newsweek. In this portion, he goes far beyond the the Solyndra scandal and gives Americans a detailed picture of just how the Obama administration operates, and how they manage to hand over BILLIONS of tax dollars to cronies for political kickbacks. He writes:

Where did green-energy cash go? Straight to campaign donors. Read more about Peter Schwiezer’s Throw Them All Out in the new Newsweek on sale Monday.

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

Really?

It would take an entire book to analyze every single grant and government-backed loan doled out since Barack Obama became president. But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs—not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

These government grants and loan guarantees not only provided access to taxpayer capital. They also served as a seal of approval from the federal government. Taxpayer money creates what investors call a “halo effect,” in which a young, unprofitable company is suddenly seen to have a glowing future. The plan is simple. Invest some money, secure taxpayer grants and loans, go public, and then cash out. In just one small example, a company called Amyris Biotechnologies received a $24 million DOE grant to build a pilot plant to use altered yeast to turn sugar into hydrocarbons. The investors included several Obama bundlers and fundraisers. With federal money in hand, Amyris went public with an IPO the following year, raising $85 million. Kleiner Perkins, a firm that boasts Obama financier John Doerr and former vice president Al Gore as partners, found its $16 million investment was now worth $69 million. It’s not clear how the other investors did. Amyris continues to lose money. Meanwhile, the $24 million grant created 40 jobs, according to the government website recovery.gov.

[...]

The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented. It also noted that officials “did not always record the results of analysis” of these applications. A loan program for electric cars, for example, “lacks performance measures.” No notes were kept during the review process, so it is difficult to determine how loan decisions were made. The GAO further declared that the Department of Energy “had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.” The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.” He has testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”

Friends indeed. These programs might be the greatest—and most expensive—example of crony capitalism in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom—surprise!—are now raising money for Obama again

There will be a lot of revelations coming out in Schweizer's new book, which hits shelves this Tuesday. For now, you can read the entire released excerpt here.

Joe Biden's Staff Lock Journalist in a Closet for Hours

Some say that Governor Palin has a contentious relationship with the press. She has had to issue statements on occasion, to correct the record concerning false information the media reported. Although journalists have spread countless distortions and contrived non-controversies against the governor, she has never reacted to them in the way the current Vice President did today. The British Daily Mail reported (emphasis mine):

As the unaware $500-a-head invitees dined on caprese crostini with oven-dried mozzarella and basil, rosemary flatbread with grapes honey and gorgonzola cheese, grilled chicken Caesar and garden vegetable wraps, veteran reporter Scott Powers was locked away.

The Orlando Sentinel reporter was ushered into the closet inside wealthy property developer Alan Ginsburg’s Winter Falls mansion, after being told that Joe Biden and Senator Bill Nelson had not yet arrived.

They were due to speak to the audience to raise money for the 2012 elections.

He was told he could only come out when the politicians were ready to give their speeches.

[...]

After 90 minutes he was allowed out to hear Biden and Nelson speak for 35 minutes, before being taken back to the closet for the remainder of the event.

From inside his temporary prison Powers emailed his office from his cell phone: ‘Sounds like a nice party.

[...]

But some guests were shocked by the Vice President’s staff.

One emailed the paper saying: ‘I was in attendance at the Fundraiser and enjoyed a nice lunch.

‘If I had known there was a reporter stuffed in the closet, I would have been compelled to stand up and demand answers.

‘I would also like to know if this is actually legal to treat people like caged animals. I’m disgusted by these actions.’

Florida state law says kidnapping entails ‘forcibly, secretly or by threat confining, abducting or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority.’

[...]

The incident is especially embarrassing for the administration because it comes at a time when the White House has been condemning the treatment of journalists trying to report in Libya.

Just ten days ago, President Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: ‘journalists should be protected and allowed to do their work.’

The Vice President’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

I certainly hope Mr. Powers recovers from his ordeal covering the Democrat fundraiser.

ABC's John Berman Distorts Governor Palin's Statement on Oil

Tuesday evening, after Governor Palin released her statement concerning oil prices on Facebook, John Berman from ABC News filed this, somewhat ridiculous report:

Sarah Palin says 2012 “can’t come soon enough.” But for what? A dramatic run or the White House? Another reality show?

It's no mistake that Mr. Berman chose to begin his report that way. Before his readers are given a chance to take in the substance of what Governor Palin had written, this guy tries to cheapen her, and subsequently her message. Keep in mind that John Berman considers himself a "newsman," he's not an editorial writer.

So then, what is the relevance of bringing up a television show the governor recorded last summer to the current topic? None. It's merely a distraction and it is in no way covering the basic Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How of his story. Like so many reporters, perhaps John Berman forgot his job description.

Forced to actually cover his topic, Berman writes (emphasis mine):

Labeling President Obama as the “$4-per-gallon president," she asserts, “The evidence of the president’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see.”

She criticizes the drilling moratorium following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the proposed elimination of tax incentives for certain types of exploration, and what she calls his “anti-drilling regulatory policies.”

She disputes the notion that rising prices are related to the unrest in the Middle East, saying rather, “the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.”

Does this guy even know how to read? Governor Palin's statement actually read (emphasis mine):

The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

That is not 'disputing' the "notion" that high gas prices are "related" to the situation in the Middle East. What she is stating is that BEFORE tensions broke out all over that region, oil prices had gone up, in large part because of Obama's energy policies. She really lays out quite the case against the Obama administration for their role in helping to create the perfect storm that we as Americans are now facing with energy costs. She lists the president's drilling moratorium, his 2012 budget, and his anti-drilling regulatory policies as all being factors to the current $4 gas at the pump. All of these things were in place before the massive demonstrations in Tunisia or Tahrir Square.

Obama's policies restrict our country from drilling our own oil. Therefore, leaving us to depend on these highly unstable parts of the globe, which in times like these, can take an already uncertain economy and throw it into a tailspin.

Berman then adds this gem to his piece:

She makes no mention of nuclear energy, so much in the news following the disaster in Japan. But she continues a refrain that she has used in recent interview -- claiming that the president is actively working to “weaken” the country.

What car runs off of nuclear energy? The title of Governor Palin's note is "The $4-Per-Gallon President." Those would be gallons of gasoline, Mr. Berman.

Since Obama has taken office, oil prices are up 67%, unemployment has gone from 7.6% to 9.5%, and the administration keeps injecting uncertainty into the market with their programs and power grabs. The economy is struggling to rebound, and high oil prices could easily prevent it from doing so, thereby making us a weaker country. Also, being beholden to dictators and foreign regimes in volatile neighborhoods isn't exactly as sign of strength. So, yes... Obama is working to weaken the country.

Governor Palin posted a great statement regarding the Obama administration's failed energy policies. While covering the item, "newsman" John Berman not only failed at journalism, but he also seems to have flunked basic comprehension.

Is the Gulf Oil Disaster Obama's Katrina?

Anchor handling tugs battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon. A Coast Guard MH-65C dolphin rescue helicopter and crew document the fire aboard the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, while searching for survivors. Multiple Coast Guard helicopters, planes and cutters responded to rescue the Deepwater Horizon's 126 person crew.

The left was quick to point their finger at George Bush following the devastation in Mississippi and Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. Initially, I was reluctant to lay any blame on the Obama administration after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf and the current oil leak situation they are dealing with even as I write this. I didn't want to point my finger in the wrong direction and simply hadn't had enough information to make any judgments. However, it's starting to become apparent that the Obama Administration has been just as effective in dealing with this situation as they are maintaining good relations with our allies.

Ron Gouget, the former manager for Louisiana's oil response team told a local Alabama news service that federal officials had missed "a narrow window of opportunity to gain control of the spill by burning last week, before the spill spread hundreds of miles across the Gulf, and before winds began blowing toward shore." Gouget was a member of the group that created the plan in 1994 designed to ensure that federal responders can begin burning oil as soon as a major leak happens and without being slowed down by a bureaucratic approval process. He said:

"They had pre-approval. The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away instead of waiting ten days to get permission. If you read the pre-approval plan, it speaks about Grand Isle, where the spill is. When the wind is blowing offshore out of the north, you have preapproval to burn in that region. If the wind is coming onshore, like it is now, you can't burn at Grand Isle. They waited to do the test burn until the wind started coming onshore."

When they asked Gouget why federal officials had waited a whole week before conducting a test burn, he said, "Good question. Maybe complacency was the biggest issue. They probably didn't have the materials on hand to conduct the burn, which is unconscionable."

He also points out that the Lousiana Unified Command Center "know how to respond to spills, and know burning should have started as soon as possible after the initial release was detected." Gouget said "they may have been overruled." He goes on:

"It may have been a political issue. The burn would make a big big plume and lots of soot. Like Valdez, the decisions to get the resources mobilized may not have occurred until it was too late. This whole thing has been a daily strip tease. At first they thought it was just the diesel, then they said the well wasn't leaking. It's unfortunate they didn't get the burning going right away. They could have gotten 90 percent of the oil before it spread."

[...]

"I keep reading that burning will only get a small portion of the oil. Not true. This one is a continuing release," ... "bright, fresh oil that should burn fairly easily."

"The bottom line, the limiting factor on burning is can you get it to burn. If it gets too thin, like a sheen, it won't burn because you don't have a fuel,"

"Generally, it's got to be thick enough, and it can't be too weathered. This stuff is weathering immediately coming out of the pipe, losing the volatiles that burn most easily. They've got to get to it right away."

So, according to Mr. Gouget it is very likely that officials who were trained and prepared to deal with this situation where probably overruled by others, no doubt focused on the political ramifications of taking drastic action to get this under control. As with most things the federal government gets involved with, it may have made a big mess, massive. Time will tell and I just hope any investigations into this disaster are done fairly and without providing cover for those who may have stepped in the way with detrimental results.

Meanwhile, the talking heads and chattering class are discussing oil drilling as an issue, some even calling it the "death knell" Of "drill baby drill." I think that is a ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction to a horrible disaster. To steal a phrase from Obama, "like it or not" oil is the lifeblood of this country, as it is with any industrialized nation. Without it, we are a shell of what we are with it. As Governor Palin points out so often, oil is directly linked to so many important issues that directly effect all of us. It is tied to security and prosperity, in a way no other resource ever could be.

In the Facebook statement she posted on this matter last week, she continued to stand strong in support of domestic drilling. She said:

"No human endeavor is ever without risk – whether it’s sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization. I repeat the slogan “drill here, drill now” not out of naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences of oil spills – my family and my state and I know firsthand those consequences. How could I still believe in drilling America’s domestic supply of energy after having seen the devastation of the Exxon-Valdez spill? I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation."

If we let this change our priorities and continue the cycle of foreign dependence, we will have have turned a terrible event into a long lasting tribute to bad decisions.

This disaster has been horrific to watch and I have a very bad feeling that things are going to get much worse before they get better. Nothing has been proven yet to implicate the Obama Administration actions directly effected the outcome of the series of events that followed the initial explosion on the rig. If Mr. Gouget is right, people must be held accountable and changes must be made to ensure that this never happens again. We will see how this all pans out, but this could very well be Obama's own Katrina.