Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Caught In The Sunlight

September 20, 2011 by  

Caught In The Sunlight

On the scale of Presidential scandals, I would hardly rank the unfolding “Solyndra-Gate” at the top of the list. I’m not even sure it holds the top spot on President Barack Obama’s personal disgrace chart. The growing pile of evidence indicating Obama either did know or should have known about improper ties between his Administration and the Democratic fat-wallet – and the evil genius behind Solyndra – George Kaiser doesn’t reveal any murder victims; meaning it places second in my book to the still-unfolding Operation Fast and Furious debacle.

But the Solyndra bankruptcy did manage to flush a half-billion taxpayer dollars down the drain, so it certainly merits examination. Consider it: Solyndra chewed up $500 million. For what Obama burned on his accomplices’ failed solar experiment, he could have simply given every (legal) American about $1.65. To put it another way: For the cost of the Solyndra scam, we could all enjoy a soft drink and a lottery ticket. The soft drink is more refreshing than photovoltaic cells; and the lottery ticket would be more likely to pay off.

Assessing blame for Solyndra is a fool’s errand; mostly because Solyndra is simply the latest example of the scams politicians have foisted on the taxpayers since well before President Warren Harding got his Teapot Domed in 1923. The question betrayed by Obama’s “Solyndra-gate” is not how the Washington elite managed to flimflam the taxpayers again, but why.

The answer comprises more than the usual “because we can” which normally motivates the wire-pullers we foolishly keep dispatching to Washington. The roots of Solyndra-gate are firmly embedded in the pseudoscientific manure intellectual cult leader Al Gore has been shoveling since he wandered off his daddy’s tobacco farm and invented the Internet: so-called global warming. Actually, we have been swallowing the various iterations of “green living” for about 50 years at this point — generally to the detriment of improved economies, better living and enhanced opportunity for everyone except the snail darter and the guy who prints those “think globally, act locally” bumper stickers.

Rachel Carson’s seminal eco-babble Silent Spring certainly provoked the world to cut back on sending the noble mosquito to that great bayou in the sky; and we had to consign only a few million Third World children to the land of the eternal Deep Woods Off®. Of course, given American liberals’ distaste for dark-skinned tykes, I suppose they consider the saving of the most annoying bug on the planet a moral victory. Drawing a line from Carson to lunatics like Al Gore and on to Solyndra-gate requires far less time than, say, sitting through Gore’s Inconvenient Slide Show.

The Obama Administration appears to have willfully ignored a series of red flags in order to rescue Solyndra. Department of Energy emails (which have been partially redacted) reveal that at least one official warned that Obama’s Presidency could end up trapped in the Solyndra coffin: “Questions will be asked as to why the administration made a bad investment, not just once (which could hopefully be explained as part of the challenge of supporting innovative technologies), but twice (which could easily be portrayed as bad judgment, or worse)… The timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.” God forbid anyone worry about the 1,100 jobs, half-a-billion dollars in taxpayer money and time wasted. I wonder how far down the liberal list those minor points might be found.

Solyndra-gate is purely bad governance spurred on by global warming hysteria and political paybacks. What people miss while focusing on the 1,100 Americans who just received their pink slips, the half-a-billion in taxpayer dollars which just went up in a cloud of carbon-neutral exhaust and President Obama’s latest adventure in stupidity is the human cost of the global warming industry. Barack Obama invested a huge pile of our money in a bad scheme based on even worse reasoning: junk science combined with good, old-fashioned back-scratching. As the economy sputters like a Government Motors bailout-mobile, Obama is playing footsie with liberal moneybag types like George Kaiser. Real people really suffer real consequences when crackpot scientific theories meet greedy liberal politicians, but they are never the ones who deserve them.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Caught In The Sunlight”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at


    They must be teaching a different kind of pseudo intellectual math at Harvard from what I was taught in parochial school. Obama thinks you can invest a trillion dollars in various schemes, lose it all, and think you have done a wonderful job. This guy must really be ingesting some powerful drugs or hallucinogenics.

    • David

      And while he’s at it, why not give the Gov Motors unions a $5,000 bonus for each employee as a new contract signing bonus when WE still own 26% of their stock? And that’s 26% of something that is valued at 2/3s of it IPO.

      • SMSgt Z retired Nam 68

        Home • Ask FactCheck • General Motors’ Debt
        General Motors’ Debt
        Posted on May 3, 2010

        Q: Did General Motors repay its TARP loan from the Treasury with other TARP money?

        A: Yes. GM repaid the loan portion of the automaker bailout ahead of schedule, with interest. It used TARP money it had already received but hadn’t spent. And taxpayers are still stuck with GM stock that isn’t worth what was paid for it.


        There are GM commercials and mass mailings that say they’ve paid back their “government loans” ahead of schedule with interest. Didn’t the government take a 71% ownership in the company? Was that a loan or is the loan a smoke screen for the actual government ownership?

        Has GM repaid its bailout loan in full with interest, 5 years ahead of schedule?

        GM is running advertisements claiming the above statement is true, and the President seemed to reaffirm that claim in his most recent radio address. However, Sen. Grassely (R) claims that GM is using other bailout funds in order to pay off the aforementioned bailout funds and their claim is simply an accounting trick.


        Many readers have asked us about the White House-touted news that General Motors, and Chrysler, repaid loan money from the Treasury Department, with interest, ahead of schedule. GM launched an ad boasting of the news, and President Obama talked about it in his weekly address on April 24.

        We wrote about this, too, on April 26 in a review of the Sunday political talk shows. Here’s the deal for those who missed that post:

        Yes, it’s true that GM paid back its loan from the Treasury Department, in full, ahead of schedule.
        But the debt was only part of the automaker bailout package. Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Treasury gave GM $49.5 billion, most of which was converted into an ownership stake in the form of stock. Through this equity stake, the government still owns 61 percent of GM.
        Some Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa have pointed out that GM used TARP money to pay back its TARP debt. That’s true, but GM simply handed back TARP money it had been lent and hadn’t used. Those funds had been sitting in an escrow account, should the automaker need them. (The company didn’t borrow new money to pay back an older loan.)
        Grassley has argued that this wasn’t a “meaningful” repayment of a loan, since it didn’t come from earnings. That’s an opinion, and we’ll leave it to readers to agree or disagree with the senator. The TARP special inspector general, Neil Barofsky, has said the repayment was “good news,” since it meant the automaker didn’t need to use those funds held in escrow. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on April 20, Barofksy made it clear GM still was operating with government help:

        Barofsky, April 20: G.M. has paid $1 billion, and I think they’ve announced that they’re going to be paying back the debt portion, which is about — I think there’s about $6 billion left in its entirety very shortly. But we should be a little — we need to be a little bit cautious about that because the way that that payment’s going to be made is drawing down an equity facility of other TARP money.

        So it’s good news in that they’re reducing their debt, but they’re using it by taking other available TARP money to repay the TARP. It’s good news because it means that money, which was going to be available for future problems with G.M., that there’s a determination that they don’t need it, but we should caution that it’s not necessarily being generated out of earnings, but out of other TARP funds.

        In an April 21 interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, Barofsky repeated his assessment that the repayment was “good news” but should be taken with a grain of salt. “I mean, the good news is, that money — they already have that money that’s in that escrow account, so it does lower the total amount of money that they owe to the government, so that’s somewhat good news,” Barofsky said. “But I don’t think we should exaggerate it too much, when we remember where — the source of this money is just other TARP money.”

        The president’s and GM’s statements may have given some the false impression that taxpayers have gotten back all the bailout money loaned to or invested in GM. Strictly speaking, Obama was accurate when he said: “GM announced that it paid back its loans to taxpayers with interest, fully five years ahead of schedule.” But he alluded only vaguely to other bailout money, which taxpayers may never get back, adding: “It won’t be too long before the stock the Treasury is holding in GM can be sold, helping to reimburse the American people for their investment.” Those statements might have confused anyone who wasn’t familiar with the details of GM’s stock-and-loan debt to the Treasury.

        As for Treasury’s equity stake, worth $40 billion-plus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the Treasury won’t fully recoup that money. The total automaker bailout, including TARP money given to Chrysler, CBO estimates, will cost taxpayers about $34 billion.

        – Lori Robertson

        Update, May 3: The CBO doesn’t give a breakdown of how much of its $34 billion cost estimate for the bailout would have gone to General Motors. But most of the automaker bailout funds went to GM. While the Treasury has a 61 percent equity stake in GM, its stake in Chrysler is 9.9 percent.

        Obama, Barack. Weekly address, transcript. 24 Apr 2010.

        Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP. “Additional Insight on Use of Troubled Asset Relief Program Funds.” 10 Dec 2009.

        Cavuto, Neil. Interview with Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector, transcript. Associated Press. 21 Apr 2010.

        CQ Transcriptions. Sen. Max Baucus Holds a Hearing on the Financial Institution TARP Fee. 20 Apr 2010.

        Grassley, Charles. “Did General Motors Really Repay Its Taxpayer Bailout?” 23 Apr 2010.

        Congressional Budget Office. Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program — March 2010. Mar 2010.


        • http://slayerwulfe slayerwulfe

          Vindication for you but it’s kind of like revenge, GM is not doing anything in China except being used, and that means were being used also.

        • http://dave676 DeLummox

          Thankyou for the post, Factual information on this topic is sadly lacking.

  • Dick Hamilton

    Ignorant tosh. Just bile and hatred, and not a single coherent thought. Where did the money go? If in someone’s pocket, name them and prove it. If it’s just a failed business proposition in the face of very determined Chinese (and strongly state-supported) competition, then that’s business. Some investors lose their shirts every day.
    The Chinese are putting a great deal of money into this business because they have read the runes, and the KNOW they will clean up.

    And then read this (a view from the industry you obviously never thought to ask)

    China’s solar rise seen in Solyndra’s fall -

    If you want to produce some valid criticism (and there’s plenty of scope for it), you have to do the work. You didn’t.

    • Dennis48e

      The money given to Solyndra was payback for the money given to obama’s campaign by the executives at the company. I do not have the link handy but the article appeared on Newsmax as well as other news sources.

  • home boy

    what’s even worse is now obama has the fed bailing out greece thru the IMF to the tune of 11billion dollars. and greece is still going to fail.

  • SMSgt Z retired Nam 68

    Five myths about the Solyndra collapse
    Posted by Brad Plumer at 10:07 AM ET, 09/14/2011
    Text Size PrintE-mailReprints
    More >

    (Bill O’Leary – The Washington Post)
    There are still plenty of nagging questions about the collapse of Solyndra, the California-based solar-panel maker that went bankrupt last month after getting $535 million worth of loan guarantees from the Obama administration. Such as: Did the Energy Department fail to do due diligence? And did the White House intervene inappropriately in pressing for the loan guarantees?

    But as Solyndra becomes the newest political chew toy, there’s been no shortage of hyperbole about the affair — especially over what it means for energy policy more broadly. On Tuesday, for example, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that Solyndra’s downfall proves “that green energy isn’t going to be the solution.” That’s quite a leap. So here’s a look at five overheated arguments about Solyndra’s bust:

    1) This scandal is no big deal. To the contrary, evidence is mounting that there was something irregular about the way the Solyndra deal got greenlighted. My colleagues Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig have obtained e-mails showing that the White House pressed the Office of Management and Budget to hurry up in reviewing the deal (note, however, that this only came after the Energy Department had approved the loan), even as OMB officials voiced concern about being rushed.

    Does that prove the White House engaged in cronyism, shoveling cash toward a political ally? Not necessarily. Democrats have pointed out that Solyndra’s loan process was initiated by the Bush administration and that many key investors were Republicans. Still, there could have been other reasons the deal was hastened. As a former Clinton energy aide stressed to me, it was arguably a mistake to sell the loan guarantees as job-creating stimulus (the program was expanded as part of the 2009 stimulus bill). “It means you try to force huge amounts of money quickly through processes that aren’t quite ready yet,” the aide said. “It’d be better to have a calmer, steadier source of funding.”

    2) Solyndra proves that energy-loan guarantees are a flop. Not exactly. The Energy Department’s loan-guarantee program, enacted in 2005 with bipartisan support, has backed nearly $38 billion in loans for 40 projects around the country. Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of that portfolio — and, as yet, it’s the only loan that has soured. Other solar beneficiaries, such as SunPower and First Solar, are still going strong. Meanwhile, just a small fraction of loan guarantees go toward solar. The program’s biggest bet to date is an $8.33 billion loan guarantee for a nuclear plant down in Georgia. Improper political influence in the process is disturbing, but, at least so far, Solyndra appears an exception, not a rule. (That said, the GAO and others have pointed out potential pitfalls and the need for stricter oversight in the loan program.)

    3) The government should leave energy R&D to the private sector. Actually, there’s reason to think the private market is drastically under-investing in new energy technology. As a new report from the American Energy Innovation Council lays out, the utility sector spends just 0.1 percent of its revenues on R&D — the average for U.S. industries is 3.5 percent. The electricity sector is heavily regulated and capital-intensive — power plants last for decades and turn over slowly — and hence tends to focus less on innovation. What’s more, many objectives that may be in the public interest, such as reducing carbon emissions, aren’t fully valued in the marketplace right now.

    As such, the AEIC report concludes, “Energy innovation should be a higher national priority.” Right now, the federal government spends a middling amount on energy research (about $3 billion in 2009), compared with the sums lavished on the National Institutes of Health ($36.5 billion) or defense research ($77 billion). And the AEIC report recommends public support for all aspects of the innovation process, from basic research to pilot projects to helping companies commercialize their products. (Solyndra was in that last phase.)

    4) Solar is a doomed industry. This view has been gaining popularity, but it’s not borne out by the numbers. Prices for solar photovoltaic modules continue to tumble, even as fossil-fuel prices rise. A June report by Ernst & Young suggests that large-scale solar could become cost-competitive within a decade, even without government support. Of course, grid operators still have to grapple with the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine, but storage technologies continue to improve — in July, a solar plant in Seville, Spain, achieved continuous 24-hour operation using molten salt storage. All told, some 24,000 MW worth of projects are in the pipeline in the United States, led by California. Those projects may not all get completed, but that’s a lot of growth underway.

    5) It’s all China’s fault. This one is complicated. China does provide hefty subsidies to its solar industry. As Climate Progress’s Stephen Lacey details, the Chinese Development Bank offers cheap long-term loans to domestic manufacturers that dwarf anything Solyndra ever got. That allows Chinese solar companies to offer cutthroat prices and drive competitors out. And yet, as Westinghouse Solar CEO Barry Cinnamon explains, it wasn’t China that caused Solyndra to go belly-up — the company had invented a solar panel that didn’t use silicon, unlike its competitors, and foundered after silicon prices plummeted.

    What’s more, the fact that China hurls money at solar isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since cheaper solar prices can benefit the United States too. The Energy Department seems to have recognized that going toe-to-toe with China on direct subsidies may be futile and is instead trying to focus on complementary efforts to bolster innovation, through programs like its Sunshot Initiative. Also, for all China’s subsidy frenzy, the United States still exported $1.9 billion of solar products last year and actually has a trade surplus in solar with China.

    • ValDM

      Can’t you please have enough intelligence to paraphrase these articles (put them in your OWN words)? Really, I don’t read these lengthy posts, and I doubt anyone else does either……so whatever point you’re trying to make is lost.

      • speedle

        The point he is trying to make is that as a die hard supporter of Kenysian economic theory, he is looking for any excuse to cloud the fact that government investment in just about anything (certainly the energy business) is doomed to debacle.

        • Centurion

          Actually the problem with posting complete copies of others’ work is legal. One post on this topic fully copied the text of a web article. Most would consider that the theft of intellectual property unless specific permission is granted and attribution made. Stealing someone else’s work sometimes prevents ads and other items from being accessed. It also has the disadvantage of taking that article out of the context of the broader body of work, preventing the reader from being able to determine if the original writer is reasonable or a nut job. Have the decency to post a link instead. While I appreciate the information provided, I’d rather not receive it as the result of the theft of intellectual property. I’m frankly surprised that the moderator would allow this. It could expose PLD to liability.

          • SMSgt Z retired Nam 68

            Forth line down SHARE

  • sean murrey ILLIniois

    He is a disgrace to this country and a big crook.

  • Charles

    Mr. Obama, the U. S. does not need more taxes. If each of us, from top to bottom, would quietly and with out show, return what we have un-justly taken, the economy would turn around over night. Some are willing to do this, but many like one rich man/ruler who came to Jesus are not and he turned away very un-happy. He chose wealth and sadness over happiness and eternal life.

  • Patriot

    Let’s have an independent investigation on this Solyndra and the gun runner project “Fast & Furious” to find out what they knew and when. Follow the money without the incompetent AG Holder! These scandals are much bigger then Watergate for cryin’ out loud!

  • Capitalist at Birth

    What is the point of the posts here today. Not really worth reading. The biggest scandal, id the facts ever come out, will be “Fast and Furious”. Anyone who continues to support these Totalitarian Socialists has made themselves my mortal enemy.

    • SMSgt Z retired Nam 68

      The ProPublica Blog
      As U.S. Guns Turn Up in Mexico, Justice Dept. Under Fire for Flubbing Anti-Smuggling Program
      by Marian Wang
      ProPublica, June 9, 2011, 12:22 p.m.7 CommentsRepublishE-mailPrint

      The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—or ATF—is under the gun yet again.

      Mexican police recently conducted a raid in Ciudad Juarez, a hotspot for the drug trade, and they swept up a cache of weapons. Among that cache? At least five assault rifles linked to a secretive anti-smuggling operation by ATF, reported the Wall Street Journal. Critics and ATF whistleblowers have for months claimed that the operation—dubbed “Fast and Furious”—has backfired.

      The questions about Fast and Furious were first reported by CBS News and iWatch in March, and noted by us at the time. According to whistleblower accounts, ATF supervisors told agents not to seize weapons sold to suspected low-level smugglers but to track them instead, in hopes of dismantling drug rings and netting ringleaders.

      The whistleblowers claim this strategy allowed thousands of weapons to pass into Mexico and fall into the hands of criminals. Prior to the latest discovery of these five weapons, other guns that the ATF had flagged as suspect had been linked to the killing of U.S. Border Patrol agents.

      The Justice Department—which oversees ATF—has denied some of the specifics about the Fast and Furious operation, though many of the details are still sketchy.

      The Journal notes that Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers last month that the Department has barred ATF and other agencies from using such tactics, and its policy is to stop guns from being smuggled to Mexico. As we’ve noted, the Justice Department had some more specific denials in March. Back then, Justice sent a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, stating that ATF “makes every effort” to prevent arms smuggling into Mexico and has never sanctioned or “knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico.”

      Since questions about the program were first reported, the Obama administration has distanced itself from the whole operation. “We don’t have all the facts,” President Obama told a Univision reporter in March. “I did not authorize it. Eric Holder, the attorney general, did not authorize it. He’s been very clear that our policy is to catch gunrunners and put them into jail.”

      The Justice Department’s inspector general is currently investigating. Several Republican lawmakers—namely, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa—have also launched Congressional probes. Issa has subpoenaed documents.

  • djdrew103

    It seems that your site is more dedicated for trashing the current administration more so than leading us to uncertain truths or objectively promoting a more freedom based literary genius.

    Rather than report on both sides of an issue, or exposing all truths, nothing but the truth, and enlightening readers, you lean heavily towards anything that can find fun in degrading the worthiness of a subject.

    Are your authors not educated enough to report on issues in a way that we can see “means and ways” of the matter, without publishing “National Enquirer” based viewpoints of chaos and corruption?

    You quickly point at the faults and supposed unethical influence our administration had in trying to save a “green” corporation that battled to stay afloat, and I will be relieved when such blind viewpoints are exposed for what they really are, merely ploys at attention getting reporting. I personally can understand why we would try to help a company that sought to competitively produce a solar panel product that would compete with China made panels and create jobs here and a suitable market to save energy by installing the products on homes. Whether the government had a series of ploys and follies in trying to do so and using poor discretion is a side point. The fact that the company sought the bailout and then abused its help is the news, not to be ignored.

    Your efforts to promote scandal, and blame the program’s use as a political ploy on the President’s part at a time when he sought clout in the upcoming elections, is a ploy in itself merely to brandish a “finger pointing” scheme to do nothing other than hurt the public viewpoint on the Obama administration’s efforts.

    In the outcome, I’ve no doubt we should chastise the government’s foolishness and so carelessly administrating those funds. Yet, I think its more in the news to see what the government is now doing to secure the refund of those monies to the tax payers, and their struggles and efforts to make right on the issue. But that’s not crowd appeasing journalism is it. I personally dare your editors and/or the authors to spend the time necessary, without ignoring the challenge, to actually do some deeper investigation into how the company abused the government help, and collect the facts as to why there was so much attention given to them and why they received the bailout and where the money went! The actual reasons, the actual facts, without leaning towards political banter and mud slinging. You most likely cannot and will not do that for fear of reprisal on bad journalism and bringing to light the effort of your column merely to downgrade any form of action by the administration.

    Ignore the challenge and you merely receive a noted failure at meeting the requirements of true journalism, hiding under the facade of open press while actually being just a republican tool, and make my claims true to your readers.

    I have watched the commission on accountability in the “real” news reports that lean much more to the truthful side of journalism, and find that though the government erred, it didn’t necessarily lead to a definition of corruption. Although they ignored standards and gave way to bad choices, their intent wasn’t corrupt nor illegal. It merely proved that there was a major oversight on the save-ability of the company which most likely used deceit and underhanded abuse of the current system to promote green energy, to acquire monies to enrich their pockets while leading their already destitute business into bankruptcy.

    The author makes claims that:

    “Solyndra-gate is purely bad governance spurred on by global warming hysteria and political paybacks.”

    Just where is your reference material as to where there were any “political paybacks”? You seem to discredit many reports and articles or books on the issue, but offer no enlightenment to any other already known facts, other than to play and whine about government incompetence.

    Take it at that, any company receiving $500,000,000 in financial support that so quickly went bankrupt, had some robber-barons in the mix to suck up as much money as they could before the company drowned. I doubt if the committee will find any major payments made to creditors or suppliers, and I want to see a report on where that money actually went, if your authors can lean away from their lazy chairs and actually go digging for the truth. If there was a scandal, I want to see the leads where whatever party was involved, got their payoffs, their bonuses or their bribes to affect the acquisition of government loans and then pocketed the money.

    If they can’t report on that, let them go looking for jobs more suiting to their talents. I think these people are hiring, and this goes for the editors that are making this site a fast becoming socio-fi publication.

    National Enquirer

    Star Magazine

    Weekly World News

    The Mirror

    The Sun

    Globe Magazine

    Mega Star

    • speedle

      djdrew, are you insane? What are you talking about when you infer that “true” journalists would be concentrating on stories about how to “the government will be able to secure refunds to the taxpayer”???? You obviously don’t understand the term “bankrupt”. That means it is all over – no “refunds”, no do overs, no assets to speak of, and certainly no appreciable salvage of any of the public treasury wasted on an ideological initiative not supported by the majority of the country.

      Yes, the media should ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and concentrate on what to do with the gas it has passed. It could foul the air you know.

    • Raggs

      drew… This is just yet another scandle of many that your beloved administration has screwed America with.

  • djdrew103


    It seems like my new idol in the form of “SMSgt Z retired Nam 68″ has shed far more light on the issues than your bought and paid for author was intellectually inclined to produce….hmmm…maybe our retired SMSGT should take a mind to side-line employ in investigative journalism as he seems quite more adapt at finding the facts to issues, posing objective questions and doing some actual fruitful fact digging than professional claimed journalists do, no insult intended, just the God’s Honest Truth and facts of the matter..

    • S

      a few facts that this author leaves out: Infographic comparing $500 million spent on Solyndra to multi-billion $ spent on countless failed military projects.

      “Some Republicans may want you to believe they don’t support this Obama-era display of government largesse. But in fact, one of the loan guarantee programs for clean energy was signed into law by the Bush Administration. And what did the Bush folks have to say about it in 2007?
      “The administration is one step closer to issuing guarantees for loans for clean energy projects that will help reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, boost economic competitiveness, and combat climate change,” DOE spokeswoman Megan Barnett wrote in an e-mail.
      If that statement were made by the Obama Administration today, conservative politicians would be all over the airwaves complaining about government manipulation of markets. The fact is, loan guarantees have historically enjoyed bipartisan support — until it wasn’t politically convenient to do so.”

      “It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.
      You’d never know from the media coverage that:
      The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.
      The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.
      The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

      Lets tell the truth and stop playing politics

      • S

        “Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.”
        Something else they leave out:

        Bloomberg had this incredibly misleading headline yesterday, “Obama Team Backed $535 Million Solyndra Aid as Auditor Warned on Finances.” If you replace “backed” with “touted,” that would be accurate. But the headline makes it seem like the White House had decided to give $535 million to a company after an auditor had said it was financially troubled.
        You have to read half the story to learn that the loan guarantee was made in 2009 and the audit was done in 2010 after market conditions had sharply worsened! And the Bloomberg story never explains that the company itself raised $250 million from private investors after the supposedly devastating audit!
        To set the record straight, Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment:

        • Raggs

          Maybe you don’t understand that the government is NOT intended to be involved in the free market and pick winners and losers!!! IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB! The governments purpose is to ensure that US laws are upheld and to protect our borders!!!!! Neither of which are currently being done!!!! The government had better mind their own purpose and leave the private sector the HELL alone!

          • eddie47d

            Where in the Constitution does it say that Wall Street has the right to pick winners and losers?

  • bob wire

    oops! A Crystal Write up. ~ If memory serving, I’ve put you in “the timeout box” You fooled me, starting off all measured and sensible like. That’s an improvement.

    never mind.

  • time traveller

    if Obama wants to play the markets, let him do it with his own money, this in no way was stimulus it was picking winners, something else this president has zero experience with

    • S

      don’t be blinded by politics-

      The truth is Bush started this- Bloomberg had this incredibly misleading headline yesterday, “Obama Team Backed $535 Million Solyndra Aid as Auditor Warned on Finances.” If you replace “backed” with “touted,” that would be accurate. But the headline makes it seem like the White House had decided to give $535 million to a company after an auditor had said it was financially troubled.
      You have to read half the story to learn that the loan guarantee was made in 2009 and the audit was done in 2010 after market conditions had sharply worsened! And the Bloomberg story never explains that the company itself raised $250 million from private investors after the supposedly devastating audit!
      To set the record straight, Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.

      • S

        get the facts not talking points!!!
        The Walton’s were a bigger contributor than Kasier

      • speedle

        Well you are just wrong pal. The Bush administration soured on the Solyndra deal before it left office. The Obama “restructuring” you reference is actually dragging it out of the ash can and resurrecting a rejected project.

        • independant thinker

          The Obama restructuring:

          “….a decision in February to restructure the loan in such a way that private investors, including an Obama fundraiser, moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default.”

          Read more on Lamar Smith: Get Special Counsel on Solyndra

      • Raggs


  • magnus

    As for me,and some thousand peoples around me here in Europe. The highest ranking presdent of the states ever since after J. Kenedy, Bill is OBAMA because we are observing every acts and movements towards his YES!WE CAN!! We can change the ugly systems and the face of the world. Mind you not only him,but includes I and you.
    Best rank of the HOLLYWOOD
    Best rank of the NOLLYWOOD
    Best rank of the BOLLYWOOD
    And the world entirely surposed to him Obama, for at least he tried to change the faces of many urgly world if not the oppositions ,he might by today done a lots.Give respect to him that presently deserve a respect, and a rank of honour to him because we all knows the truth,but the ruth is bitter and the reality strocks.

    • Kevlar Linc

      “As for me,and some thousand peoples around me here in Europe”…….are you sure you don’t really mean “Nigera”…?

  • magnus

    try to fucose on the new world development rather than puting confussions in the name of politics.God love you and i to create us on earth.

  • John Taylor

    It would be interesting to know what other globalist investors are behind this scam. I am sure George Kaiser is not alone.

  • Deborah

    The news reported Obama also invested in Solyndra. This was around 2009. Had he managed to ram Cap and Trade down our throats about a year later, both he and his buddies at Solyndra would have made a fortune when Americans (no longer able to afford electricity when prices necessarily skyrocketed) would have turned to solar to provide some of their energy. Then this would be insider trading. Isn’t it still insider trading when the inside information doesn’t pan out? The intent is the same. Insider trading is a crime.

    • Raggs

      Smart lady Deborah.
      And “Yes he did” stack the deck just as he and george soros did with their taxpayer funded investment into Petro-bra while putting a moratorium on our offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico. The same with the incandescent light bulb ban while GE produces corkscrew light bulbs overseas. The list goes on and this man is corrupt to all hell.

    • doug rowe

      No insider trading is only illegal if you are not in congress.


  • Pete0097

    The company could have given 4.545 million dollars per employee when they went bust. I guess that they paid a lot to the owners. I wonder where barry and michelle have their money invested. You can bet that those companies are “too important to fail”

  • FreedomFighter

    500 million payoff to cronys

    You could put that 500 million in a real investment at 5% and pay out 50,000 dollars a year to 500 million people. BTW we would still have the 500 million 10 years later.

    Less than 400 million people in the USA. Everybody 50,000 plus a year for life, Obama just handed us a debt.

    When are we going to Impeach Obama, the criminal an chief gangster?

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • FreedomFighter


      500 Million = 500 millionairs

      1 Trillion = 1 million millionairs

      1/2 Trillion more wanted = 1/2 million more millionairs

      if invested at 5% and only interest distributed 25,000 a year for 3 million plus people and money retained by goverment.

      Americns got nothing but the bill with interest.

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

  • Tess_2

    Flush $500 million on this project.
    Flush $500 million on the next project.
    Soon Obama gives his friends Billions of Tax Dollars.

    The Solyndra Scandal is not the worst thing to happen in the USA. However, lookk at the bigger picture, besides being out $500 million 1,100 people lost their Jobs.

  • Raggs

    The government has NO business in the free market. oblama is doing his best to push his MARXIST / SOCIALIST agenda of wealth redistribution via “GREEN ENERGY” bat-chit idiot science… Why are we allowing oblama to target our lifestyle ( must be that changey stuff )


    First, get all the facts. Do not rely on what you first hear from the media or read in the papers. Do a little digging. Findout who appointed the committee that o,k,’d the deal. Why, they were political appointees that happened to be in palce when Obama took office. Next, who were the investors? Well, a Walton family fund was the second largest inverstor. Third, how does restructuring a loan work? In this case, the investors who put money in to restructure the loan get first dibs. In other words, stop yer yappin until you get the facts.

    • Raggs

      Oh,,, How about this for a “fact”…

      The son of a bitch government does NOT have the power or authority to purchase a business, that is NOT why we have the thugs regardless of who you point your bent little finger at!
      Go ahead and blame Bush or the tooth fairy that is only a destraction from the dictator oblama and you are losing the arguement. Why the hell are you attempting to blame someone else for this illegal action anyway?.. Is it to hide the thruth about oblama or do you care more about getting that piece of chit re-elected than you do your country?

      Which is it? you care more about getting this chit-head re-elected than I consider you a TRAITOR…. And yes let the punishment fit the crime.

  • http://yahoo skyraider 6

    great raggs

    • eddie47d

      I see nothing great about Raggs ragging. The government should stay out of private business affairs as much as possible yet they should have a hand in setting the rules in controlling the bad behavior of those private businesses. Obama did his best in supporting Solyndra as a viable American Company. Too bad the nation can’t back him up to keep American companies employing people. China makes the most solar panels today when just a few years ago the USA made the most. So we keep loosing these jobs because no one gives a rats patute. Now Dubai (an Arab country) is the second largest solar manufacturer as of this year. So why are the Raggs so hell bent on destroying American jobs? The governments of China and Dubai spend billions supporting their workers and those countries are thriving. Raggs thinks he has all the answers yet I hear only anger coming from him.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Yup, and when the company failed, he made sure the private investors, himself included, got paid first before the tax payer!!! How convenient!!

  • Ben Crystal (The very same!)

    Not for nuthin’:

    I’m sure everything is on the up-and-up, however.


    Every frigging thing about this Fraud in the WH merits investigation which was supposed to be done prior to the candidacy but was not ever done to public knowledge. Now unless we use a crow bar to get the SOB out we have to wait and take our chances on a election that the Deemers will most certainly try and sabotage to save their butts from prosecution and public hangings.

    Deemers are the reason we need to enlarge our incarceration facilities, we need a place to put them, especially their politicians…..

  • http://slayerwulfe slayerwulfe

    Some of my research into the 70s reveals (I don’t have the exact date)an airplane manufacturer was given by gov,t $400,000 to write a speculative essay on the existence of aliens. !!!??? for those of you that are older citizens Sonny and Cher singing “And the crap goes on”
    research grants are a reality but the difference between grants for research and graft, is like trying to prove bribery, it’s impossible to prove and any money spent on it is just wasted, just forget about it it’s gone.
    On to solar and global warming: The planet we call earth has been in an ice age for the past 200 million yrs.(please do an internet search and become educated)What most lay persons refer to as an ice age are just glacial periods.We are seeing an end to this ice age and that means change. Solar energy is the most efficient and valuable source of energy that exists and it is so powerful that the star we call Sun powers this whole planet and if this sun were gone what the hell are fossil fuels going to do.

  • http://slayerwulfe slayerwulfe

    Now to continue on intelligently: This Ice Age that started 200 million is responsible for the dominance of mammals over reptiles because they reptiles become dormant in cold and are easier to kill. We are coming out of this ice age, the polar caps are melting the temperature will rise and it will definitely cause changes on this planets flora and fauna. All I can’t stress it enough All life on this planet IS going to change in some way DARWINISM is reality. This is what we need to concern ourselves with, not petty bitching about who is right or wrong, grow up.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.