Solargate: Larry Summers was worried about Solyndra in 2010
Late Friday night–in what is quickly become a tradition–the White House dumped more documents related to the Solyndra scandal, and these documents show that Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers, had concerns about giving the now bankrupt green energy company a $500 million loan using taxpayer money. As a matter of fact so did Joe Biden’s top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein.
Yet Barack Obama ignored the concerns of his regime’s top economic advisors and gave into the will of top Solyndra investors who, in a remarkable coincidence, just happen to be top Democrat donors as well. Why even have an economic advisor in the first place if you are simply going to bend to the will of political donors?
Well, maybe he did listen to Larry Summers…..to an extent.
Did Ron Paul actually win the Maine Caucus?
Mitt Romney is the chosen one in the establishment GOP and within the media. He is the man that both these entities want to see as the Republican nominee, and he is the man who is being thrust upon us as the only man who could possibly beat Barack Obama in November. But could the GOP be intriguing against the other candidates in an effort to ensure the once inevitable nominee holds on to win the nomination?
First we had Iowa; Mitt Romney was declared the winner in the first contest in the nation by a margin of eight votes, but reports of a miscount quickly surfaced. When this knowledge came to light, the man who told news outlets there was a problem with one county’s report was reprimanded for speaking out. One has to wonder if the original results would have been challenged if this news didn’t leak out to the media–maybe the “typo” was even intentional and that is why there was backlash against the whistleblower.
Once the news leaked out there was no other option for the Iowa GOP, the votes had to be counted and several weeks later Rick Santorum was announced as the official winner of the state–far too late for him to gain real momentum in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Solargate: House panel prepares to subpoena five White House officials over Solyndra
The Obama regime is embroiled in several “green energy initiative” scandals–SunPower, LightSquared, Beacon, Fisker, Tesla, Ener1, and BrightSource–but none is bigger, or more expensive, that the Solyndra scandal.
Here is a quick background on the Solyndra scandal: Solyndra was an alternative energy company which the Obama regime awarded $500 million in stimulus money. The Obama regime was anxious to kick off its “green jobs initiative” so the loan was fast tracked and the review was not completed before the money was awarded to Solyndra even though there were major concerns about the companies viability.
This provided Joe Biden with a nice little backdrop for the Obama regime to announce the “green energy initiative” but the concerns over the company’s viability were soon realized when Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. But the story gets worse because the Obama regime rewrote the stimulus loan terms to ensure that Solyndra investors–who just happen to be Democrat and Obama donors–were prioritized and protected ahead of the taxpayers.
Fast forward to today: The House has asked the president for permission to talk to five White House officials about the Solyndra scandal, but the White House has been stonewalling the request and has not yet provided permission for the people to talk to the committees investigating this scandal. Mum’s the word.
Because of the White House’s unwillingness to voluntarily cooperate with the investigation, Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns set a deadline of Friday for the White House to comply willingly or they would vote to subpoena the five people in question.
This would be the second subpoena issued related to Solyndra; the first subpoena was issued in November and Barack Obama announced that he was rejecting the subpoena and would not comply with it–and he hasn’t. During today’s announcement Upton and Stearns warned the White House to turn over the documents relating to the first subpoena by Tuesday or they would consider contempt of Congress charges.
The Solyndra scandal and investigation could just be starting to heat up (global warming pun fully intended) but judging from Darrell Issa’s unwillingness to back up his contempt threat in the Fast and Furious scandal, I will not hold my breath waiting for any contempt charges against the White House. I hope I am wrong, but I have lost my faith in the Republicans in the House and I do not have high expectations that this investigation is going to go anywhere.
Democrats claim Republican’s opposition to the contraception mandate would return America to the dark ages
Late last night Senator Blunt added an amendment to the federal highway reauthorization bill which would undo Barack Obama’s proclamation that religious institutions and charities which offer their employees heathcare insurance be forced to carry plans which offer free birth control.
Before I get to the subject matter at hand let me first state that I am opposed to Senators and Congressmen adding unrelated amendments to pending legislation, all amendments added to pending legislation should be related to that legislation. An amendment which is not related should be introduced as new legislation and should be debated on its own merits. I firmly believe that if Republicans want to overturn Barack Obama’s contraception proclamation it should be done in a separate bill, but that is the subject of another post so onto the issue at hand.
The Blunt amendment has been met with sharp criticism from many Democrats, who have declared that the Blunt amendment would return America to the dark ages: Read more…
Gunrunner: Is Darrell Issa moving forward with Contempt charges against Eric Holder?
I have to admit I was pretty disheartened when I read the news last week that Darrell Issa had given Eric Holder an indefinite extension to comply with his subpoena on Operation Fast and Furious because it sounded like the fix was in and was not going to be held accountable in the deadly scandal.
But then earlier today Darrell Issa sent this letter to Eric Holder which the Daily Caller describes as a “major step toward holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress” and needless to say my spirits were lifted. I have read the letter and I have to say I don’t see anything in it which I would consider a major step towards holding Eric Holder in contempt, apparently the Daily Caller is referring to this line in the letter: Read more…
Rick Santorum opens up a big lead over Mitt Romney in Michigan
Mitt Romney is not a consistent conservative, if you believe he is a conservative at all, but there has been one consistent aspect to Mitt Romney’s presidential bid in this primary season; even while winning several contests he has done so while gaining less support among voters than he had when he ran for president in 2008 in those same states.
This says quite a bit about Mitt Romney; how is it that while he has basically been campaigning for president for six years that he not only hasn’t been able to increase his poll numbers from 2008, now that he has greater name recognition, but has actually lost support from 2008 when he lost to John McCain? It can be deduced that the more the voters hear from Mitt Romney, the less they like him.
How much longer can Mitt Romney hold on in light of his apparent dwindling popularity over the last six years? Surely if this trend continues it will come back to haunt him as people begin to question why it seems to be that Mitt Romney cannot connect with conservative voters. And in two weeks time he may be put to the ultimate test when voters from his home state of Michigan head to the polls.
Did Warren Buffett make $154 million on Barack Obama’s foreclosure abuse settlement?
Earlier this week Barack Obama and Eric Holder announced that the Obama regime and the “Justice” Department had reached a $26 billion deal with five banks in a foreclosure abuse settlement. According to the article linked to above, this deal also ends a separate investigation into Bank of America because the bank will pay a $1 billion settlement.
Barack Obama called this a “landmark event” when the announcement was made, and do you know who else must be feeling this is a landmark event at this point in time? None other than billionaire and Obama supporter Warren Buffett because it turns out that Warren Buffett just happens to own stock in Bank of America and when the settlement was reached Warren Buffett stood to make $154 million in the deal if he exercised his stock options Friday morning. Being the smart business man he is I would find it doubtful that he did not.
$154 million is a mere pittance to a man of Warren Buffett’s wealth so perhaps he will donate this money to a worthy cause like say, I don’t know, Barack Obama’s reelection campaign?
This is the second time in recent history that Warren Buffett stands to profit from decisions made by the Obama regime; when Barack Obama announced he was killing the Keystone pipeline last month Warren Buffett just happened to be a beneficiary in that decision as well. What an amazing couple of coincidences!
At the end of January Darrell Issa sent Eric Holder a letter demanding him to comply with his subpoena and provide the Oversight Committee with the requested documents related to the deadly Operation Fast and Furious scandal by February 9th or face a Contempt of Congress charge.
Well, February 9th has come and gone and yet Eric Holder faces no Contempt of Congress charge because Darrell Issa has backed down an given Eric Holder yet more time to comply with the subpoena. As if a year weren’t enough time to comply in the first place.
So what is the new line in the sand date? Well, there is none. Darrell Issa has given Eric Holder no date to which he must comply before issuing Contempt of Congress charges, and it appears as if he has dropped the possibility of charging Eric Holder for Contempt and Holder will be able to continue stonewalling the investigation for as long as he wishes.
This is very disappointing news to say the least and it now looks like the fix just might be in and the rumors about John Boehner’s deal with the “Justice” Department might be true. After all this time the Oversight Committee may be about to let Eric Holder off the hook by letting him place the blame on his underlings. At this point it seems as if Darrell Issa and John Boehner have as much respect for the sacrifice Brian Terry made, as well as the feelings of his family, as does Eric Holder.
The only other possibility I see for this decision is the possibility that Darrell Issa wants this investigation to drag into the general election so that it can be used as a campaign issue in the fall, but I find that to be highly unlikely.
Mitt Romney is running on his private experience in the business sector as a jobs creator, while ignoring his record as governor of Massachusetts. Whenever one of his political rivals mentions his less than conservative record as governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney likes to fall back on the fact that the Massachusetts legislature under his tenure was 85% Democrat, so he was very limited in what he was able to accomplish. It wasn’t his fault, he was a victim of Massachusetts politics.
It is true and cannot be disputed that the Massachusetts legislature was–and remains–heavily Democrat controlled, but it leads me to ask this question: Mitt Romney was not from Massachusetts but CHOSE to run for governor in one of the most liberal states in America, so why is it that this was the state he decided to run in if he were a true conservative? Could it be that this was a great way to hide his true liberal policies behind the legislature of a liberal state?
He ran for governor simply as a stepping stone to the presidency and I find it odd he would chose to base his presidential aspirations in Massachusetts of all states if he really is who he says he is.
Question: What do Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now Rick Santorum have in common?
Answer: At various times during the campaign they have each posed a serious threat to Mitt Romney’s inevitability and because of this Mitt Romney has launched vigorous, brutal, and nasty attacks on these candidates in an attempt to destroy them in order to assure his assumption to the nomination which he feels he is entitled to.
I read this opinion piece on American Thinker the other day and, well, it got me thinking. The article was about Mitt Romney’s “scorched earth” politics and how it is suppressing voter turnout as people become disenfranchised with the Republican party as a result. Here is some of that article:
The real story of the three results from Tuesday night is not that Rick Santorum picked up some wins — though that is big. No, the real story is that three states held votes and nobody came. Almost nobody, that is. Consider that the total turnout for Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota combined was barely over half of the turnout of South Carolina alone and — worse yet — barely over half the turnout for the same three states in 2008.
What gives?
The answer is fairly clear. The candidates have forgotten about Obama. What has turned folks off is Mitt Romney’s scorched-earth campaign, which has managed to unfortunately suck all the rest of the candidates into a circular firing squad of a childish food-fight that is of zero interest to the Republican base voter.
After giving this article some thought I have come to the realization that this is a legitimate concern moving forward. Mitt Romney will stop at nothing to win the nomination and if that means destroying to political careers and personal reputations of all of those who stand in his way, so be it. Rick Santorum said it best when he said, and I am paraphrasing here, that Mitt Romney doesn’t want to stand on his record as governor of Massachusetts so he has focused on destroying his opponents instead.
America's Watchtower 