The Green, Green Grass of Fraud

The Waxman-Markey bill made it out of committee yesterday, but there is still some hope that sensible people can throw themselves on this fiscal grenade of a bill, before it irreparably harms the public with higher taxes and fewer jobs.

The bill itself is physically 900+ pages of misdirection and hype. Contrast that with the Highway bill that basically created the Interstate system that comprised 29 pages- I guess that people back then didn’t need to obscure their intent with legalese.

It was the object of one of the biggest lobbying campaigns of any piece of environmental legislation, with millions of dollars spent on both sides in the months leading up to Thursday’s vote. Lawmakers heard from former Vice President Al Gore, local utility companies, hunters and fishermen, national environmental groups, agricultural interests and the coal, oil and natural gas industries.  –   N.Y. Times

No kidding. As Bjorn Lomborg, the author of The Climate- Industrial Complex points out, U. S. companies and other interested groups had hired 2,430 lobbyists last year, and that was up 300% from a year ago. So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?  Heck, the biggest utilities spent over 50 million on lobbying in just six months. Green truly is the color of money-for those in power circles- not so much with us “common” people though.

As Mr. Lomborg writes, ” The massive transter of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the progress resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.” –

And its not only the losses in jobs we as consumers have to worry about- this is truly the new scam of the century, and these “Carbon Barons”, as they would tout themselves, stand to make millions on the backs of consumers like you and me. This weekend, as we speak, (or read), the World Business Summit On Climate Change is meeting in Copenhagen, ready to hammer out the division of the spoils. Interested parties who stand to gain millions will all be there. Duke Energy, a major player in electrical production, has long promoted the cap and trade scheme, and it is quite a scheme. But they were opposed to the Warner- Lieberman bill, because it didn’t favor coal companies enough. That’s bound to tick off some lefties, because the favorable language is back in the Waxman- Markey version.

Still, all the major players will be at this conference, even Al Gore, who stands to increase his net worth from 2 million dollars to over 100 million dollars if this climate change bill is passed- heck we might as well just write our checks directly to the wooden man.

“The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner, and the chair of a green private- equity firm invested in products that a climate- scared world would buy.” –

And then there are the other interested parties, like the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, a company called Vestas, who, it’s a safe bet, will be touting wind energy as the cureall to our energy blues. The propaganda flows fast and furious in this (no pun intended) environment, as Vestas also sponsors CNN’s “Climate in Peril” segment, which hopefully will increase support for policies that would increase the earnings of this company.

And then, let us not forget GE- the company that is promoting the smartgrid technology, solar panels, and ion- lithium batteries, all to be used heavily in this new energy world of ours. Is it coincidence that Jeffery Immelt, the CEO of GE, and head of the three TV networks that routinely kiss Barama’s butt (NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC) is also our Energy Czar? I mean really, this doesn’t stink to high heaven of collusion? Transparency my butt- this is just a power grab for money alone, greed pure and simple, and Barama is at the head of the line, due to get paid off big- time by turning his hypocritical back on the poor people he so piously claimed to want to protect. Why, this beats the Catholic Church’s Selling of Blessings as the world’s Biggest Hypocrisy. Congrats. 

Barack Hussein Obama is a LIAR, plain and simple. What’s worse, is he is proving himself to be a con man, unconcerned about walking over the people he said he cared for, all in a quest for money and power.

While I might support the research into alternatives to fossil fuels, decisions are being made on a global scale now that will affect us negatively for literally generations to come, and we will be forced to become “carbon slaves” to the new overlords of power generation, made to work in an environment that favors the big businesses that control that power. Sound familiar?

The new Boss, same as the old Boss. 

Now, that’s change you can believe in.


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

64 Responses to “The Green, Green Grass of Fraud”

  1. Big Dog says:

    Bush was accused of being in bed with big business, particularly Big Oil.

    Obama is in bed with big business, particularly Big Green.

    These bills are nothing more than ways for the elitists to get very, very rich. The nation has gotten cooler and there are too many scientists who say sunspot activity is the issue, not CO2.

    Mars is warming, guess the Martians have SUVs.


    The elitists and their friends in big business…

    Obama will look out for the little guy. Right. Once the little guy is so dependent on gubmint then Obama and the jackboots will control every aspect of their lives.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: Bush was accused of being in bed with big business, particularly Big Oil.>>

      Just accused? LOL.

      BIGD: Obama is in bed with big business, particularly Big Green.>>

      You may be right on this. Invest accordingly. One president reveled in the waste and pollution of a dead end resource, the other will help America compete by reducing waste and pollution and improving efficiency. And that’s a very good thing.

      BIGD: The nation has gotten cooler and there are too many scientists who say sunspot activity is the issue, not CO2.>>

      If you ever want to go to the mat and try and defend your unscientific anti-climate change beliefs, just let me know. And no, there aren’t “too many” scientists who think sunspots explain our warming, there are hardly any and almost without exception, they are NOT climate scientists. Regarding the sunspots, begin here:

      Regarding the “nation [has] gotten cooler,” look at a hundred year graph, not a cherry-picked couple of years.

      BIGD: Mars is warming, guess the Martians have SUVs.>>

      Actually, that’s complete rubbish. Take a moment and learn the truth from an award winning science site (no politics) written by climatoligists:

      “Global warming on Mars?”


      “Recently, there have been some suggestions that “global warming” has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a “global” change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.”


      • Blake says:

        The summit in Copenhagen is rife with speakers who warn of global warming in dire, and indeed inflamatory and overly scary (read- lies) views.
        You have James Lovelock, who believes much of europe will be saharan desert, “Sir” Crispin Tickell ( I have a hard time taking anyone with THIS name seriously), who seriously believes that the United Kingdom’s population needs to be cut by 2/3 so the country can “cope” with “global warming”, and Timmy Flannery, who is warning of seas as high as an eight story building.
        The UN itself says its forecasts call for between 7 – 23 INCHES by 2100- not as scary, Darrel

      • Big Dog says:

        Global warming has occurred over time long before man was here. It goes in about 1500 year cycles and the peaks are around 750 years. In the 1970s the big fear was an ice age and we can see how that turned out. The last 100 years the temperature has risen what?

        CO2 is necessary. We expire it and plants use it. They release O2 which we need. Seems like some kind of Intelligent Design.

        There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in GW and many who believe in sunspot activity. To say the issue is settled is a slap in the face to real science where they continue to work toward an actual truth. Stopping the debate with inane suggestions that the science is settled, especially since it has yet to be proved, is careless.

        I bet in 8 years we will still be having the debate, the polar ice caps will be about the same though they might switch (which is bigger and which is smaller) and the temperature will not have changed.

        Al Gore stands to make a ton of money on a hoax. Green technology is a way to make special people rich at our expense. I imagine you are an expert on this as well so the rest of us should bow down to you.

        Sorry but I still have all the parkas I need to get rid of after the ice age scare that never came to be.

        Oil is here for a reason and that reason is for us to use. There is a lot of it and a lot of natural gas. They keep finding oil fields and we have not run out yet.

        I would love to see us come up with an affordable alternative that is renewable but I am not willing to get rid of oil until we have that. I also don’t want to be poor and without power while a guy who flies in private jets and uses more electricity in his house in a month than 20 families do in a year tells me I need to save the planet.

        If you all believe in evolution than you should not worry. The fittest will evolve to handle whatever happens.

        • Darrel says:

          BIGD: In the 1970s the big fear was an ice age and we can see how that turned out.>>

          No, that’s false. A lie peddled by dishonest commentators like George Will (who I usually like).

          For starters, see:


          For a debunk of Will’s latest howlers on this see:

          BIGD: There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in GW…>>

          Right-wing weathermen, are not climate scientists. Let’s check:

          “According to a recent article in Eos (Doran and Zimmermann, ‘Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change’, Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23 – only available for AGU members – update: a public link to the article is here), about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. The disproportion between these numbers is a concern, and one possible explanation may be that the science literacy among the general public is low.”

          Note: “Not one single, solitary scientific professional or honorific science organization has dissented from the consensus opinion on climate change. Not one. And it’s been examined in minute detail by the NAS, AGU and a veritable alphabet soup of scientists [and science organizations].

          BIGD: and many who believe in sunspot activity.>>

          Actually your GW denier material is out of date. This isn’t even brought up anymore and when it was, it was be people who weren’t climate scientists.

          BIGD: To say the issue is settled is a slap in the face to real science…>>

          Science doesn’t give us certainty, it gives us probabilities. We have about 95% confidence that the claims held by the climate scientists regarding mankind’s influence in warming the earth, current and in the future, are accurate.
          You could be right. It could be some unknown cause we have not recognized. But this is not very likely.

          BIGD: Stopping the debate with inane suggestions that the science is settled, especially since it has yet to be proved, is careless.>>

          Don’t stop the debate but give some good reasons to doubt the consensus position. Sunspots, cooling in the 70’s, we breath CO2, doesn’t get it. Here is a standard FAQ on this. You no doubt have a few more of these floating around because you have heard them but not checked them out. Check out the debunk before you pass along GW denier material. There are probably 80 in this list:

          BIGD: Al Gore stands to make a ton of money on a hoax.>>

          His investments in green technology are given to a non-profit (FOX dishonestly edited that part out of his video testimony). See:

          “Fox News Caught Repeatedly Cropping, Manipulating Video”

          BIGD: Green technology is a way to make special people rich at our expense.>>

          Anyone can invest. I encourage you to. My computer is running on solar power right now. I bought four 15 watt panels at Tractor Supply for $299 and the battery for $69. They probably won’t pay for themselves because energy is still far too cheap. This will change. I charge tools and play with them for fun.

          BIGD: Oil is here for a reason and that reason is for us to use. There is a lot of it and a lot of natural gas.>>

          There used to be a lot of it. We are going to use it, every bit of it, but we need to be smart. 12 mpg is not smart. Driving a hummer is not smart and giving a $100,000 tax benefit to encourage the purchase of heavier vehicles is stupidity on stilts. We will need that last bit of oil to lube the gears on my grandsons electric vehicle. And we need oil for our fertilizers.

          BIGD: They keep finding oil fields and we have not run out yet.>>

          All the big ones have been found and many of those are in major decline. I encourage you to read up on this. I have put this rather concise collection together:

          BIGD: I also don’t want to be poor and without power while a guy who flies in private jets and uses more electricity…>>

          More rubbish about Al Gore. Make your claims specific and I’ll roast them.

          And your smears are out of date. As I posted over a year ago:

          “Gore makes Nashville home more ‘green’

          * Home now has solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating

          * Highest rating possible “short of tearing it down,” says U.S. Green Building Council

          The CNN article is gone but I copied it all here:

          Half way down my post.


          “The Green Building Council’s certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore’s home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification….

          …his natural gas use has dropped 93 percent in the three months since the geothermal pump was activated.”


          • Big Dog says:

            Don’t want to get into the GW debate. All people have their opinions. I will wait and see what happens because we have doen the Chicken Little routine before. Gore donates to a non profit headed by him and that he gets paid from. He stands to make about 100 million dollars.

            Many scientists disagree. Unfortunately, when they speak up they are ridden out of town on a rail.

            It does not matter what Gore did to his house. He should have done it before and he still uses a lot of energy.

            Bush’s ranch had geothermal for a long time and uses much less energy than Gore’s mansion.

            • Darrel says:

              “he [Gore] stands to make about 100 million dollars.”

              If that were true I would say good, people who invest wisely should make money. Feel free to join in. But you can’t back up your claim. Gore comes from old money, there is no evidence that this is his motivation. Rightwingers constantly accuse him of doing his book and movie for money. He and his wife are (have):

              “…devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming.”


              BIGD: “Bush’s ranch had geothermal for a long time”

              DAR: That’s true. People should follow his example. Hot Rock geothermal technology holds tremendous potential for America.

              You say: “It does not matter what Gore did to his house.”>>

              He bought an historic house and rather than tear it down, invested much time and effort into making it efficient. As the link I gave cited: “Gore’s home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification.”

              Have you ever thought that talking reasonably about these issues might be more effective?


          • Big Dog says:

            Yes let’s discuss scientists and how they feel and then use a software developer to make the point. Science Blog is a blog. Calling it science does not make it so:

            Coby is a software developer specializing in Artificial Intelligence applications. He has been blogging about climate change since January, 2006.

            • Darrel says:

              BIGD: “lets… use a software developer to make the point.>>

              No, lets not. Do you call a piano tuner to fix a broken pipe? Knowledge is very specialized. You know about this with your medical background. When people talk outside of their field they get lost and make fools of themselves, quickly.

              Twice I thought I figured out an illness I had. Damn, if I only didn’t have to go to the doctor to get a prescription! Why can’t I get this stuff myself? I go to the doctor. In about 30 seconds he tells me what I have and it is nothing remotely like I thought.

              Figuring out medical problems is not a specialty of mine.

              Knowledge is very specialized these days.

              My knowledge specialty is pianos. When people talk about pianos, they usually don’t know what they are talking about and this includes salesmen and world class pianists.

              Climatology is a very specialized science. is an award winning science site written by climate scientists without politics. If you want to check something about this science, start there.

              I don’t know who your Coby is but you have not been getting good information but rather someone confirming bias you want to hear. This is a common problem.


            • Randy says:

              Good points! And while we are on it, the statements I make regarding green technology and smart grids are based on the specialized knowledge I have as an electrical engineer. I am not talking about this stuff politically, but realistically. I study this stuff. While my career in engineering so far has had more to do with data transmission, I am hoping to start a graduate program in the fall to get my MSEE, shortening the time I have to put in to qualify to sit for the PE exam. Once that occurs I hope to be able to dive headfirst into the field of power generation and distribution. Grab the bull by the horns and help make this stuff a reality.

              I just want to give some perspective of where I am coming from and why I feel so strongly about this particular issue.

              And generally speaking, you won’t find many engineers in any discipline that carry with them such a can’t do attitude as some of the folks posting here.

            • Big Dog says:

              I wish you all the luck in the world. I don’t think people here have a can’t do attitude, we just say don’t eliminate what we have until we have something better. Half the stuff the are pushing is untested and unproven. Test it and prove it and if it works and is no more expensive then let’s put it into practice and see how it does in test trials. If it is still good then start upgrading.

              I still don’t hold out much hope for cars that don’t run on a petroleum product. I really don’t hold out much hope for planes that will. We need to make doubly sure we have that one right.

            • Randy says:

              I need to correct what I said above, I do have a political perspective on the green energy matter. Policy important on how this stuff is developed and implemented. I have no partisan perspective is a better way to say it. And no one with any real influence, including the President is talking about throwing away what we already have. As I also have mentioned in this very thread the goal of the energy policy being talked about is to shift the incentives to developing MORE oil to developing energy generated from renewable sources.

            • Big Dog says:

              Do you know the difference between an engineer and a cowboy?

            • a mother says:

              I’ll bite. What?

            • Blake says:

              It is not a can’t do attitude here- but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
              Coal, for example, should be studied to find ways to make it cleaner for generation. This is already PROVEN technology, not pie in the sky. With solar, wind, and other, you need to lay transmission lines, which means using eminent domain, AND fighting your friends the eco- nuts, who want to vainly save a snail darter or some such. To wade through all those lawsuits will take a lot of time unless Barama just confiscates the land, which I wouldn’t doubt.

            • Randy says:


              I think this thread is dead, but for the record: Calling it clean coal is a bit misleading. None of it is clean. The clean coal technology encompasses various methods of filtering out and capturing pollutants, then storing them. It’s proven to work, but it is very expensive and you still end up with a whole lot of pollution, it’s just not in the atmosphere. It also accomplishes nothing in the sense of being renewable. I also wonder what you think it is about electricity generated by burning coal that doesn’t require transmission lines. That issue is there no matter how you generate your power.

            • Blake says:

              The technology could exist if we try, but you seem ready to tout energy proposals that require whole NEW infrastructures, rather than improving some older ones- take nuclear, for example, or hydroelectric, neither of which have been discussed seriously here. Yes, but in some cases, the transmission lines are close by, or even there existing- with new tech, you begin everything from scratch.
              Look at our existing cars, which burn SO much less pollutants than they used to- improvements, right?
              I just think that what you are expecting is that this new tech will spring up overnight, and it will not- it will be at least forty years before the system is changed sufficiently to call ANYTHING a success, and we will need oil and gas til then. To ignore that reality is not a sane option.

            • Blake says:

              Is it cleaner than before? Yes? then that is an improvement. Good.

            • Blake says:

              You say you are knowledgable about everything, it seems – my o my- and all these claims are backed up by – nothing.
              I could boast also, but why? Its not germane to the conversation except to allegedly lend a dubious cred to whatever is being discussed- and yet you quote the same old, tired website time and again- I do not believe that lib site, so you have absolutely no cred with me.
              Perhaps one day you can be a “specialist” in the truth- are you a goat farmer, of a piano tuner?

            • Darrel says:

              I don’t make claims I can’t back up. You should have learned that by now. I strongly encourage you to ask me to back up any claim I make.

              I am a piano technician with 24 years experience. I have other businesses and hobbies as well. One of them involves goats.

              I am not interested in talking about *me* so don’t try and do that. I mentioned pianos, and BigD’s medical background to make a point about specialized knowledge.


            • Blake says:

              Darrel- how could I ask you to back up the piano tuner claim? Why would I even want to? I have accomplishments as well, but I don’t tout them as you do, nor do I care to.
              You can be anyone you care to be D- it really does not matter.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel, the lie was not peddled by Will- He had nothing to do with the Newsweek cover depicting the Earth as a ball of ice.
          You libs were wrong in trying to scare us with cooling, so you went the other way with global warming- when that turned out to be false, libs thought of a way to always seem as if they are right, so now it’s :climate change” which is stupid, as this is what climate does- naturally, just as libs naturally have that chicken little tendency to scare people.
          Unfortunately for some, some people actually listen to that garbage.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “the lie was not peddled by Will-”

          Will has been peddling the “70’s cooling” whopper for years. His latest howlers are documented at the link I provided. I like and respect George Will but he has made an utter fool of himself on this one (and a few other issues).

          BLK: He had nothing to do with the Newsweek cover depicting the Earth as a ball of ice.>>

          A piece of advice: Don’t appeal, to a single article, in a non-science, non-peer reviewed, coffee table news magazine written 36 years ago for the lay public. That’s not where science is done.

          As one fellow put it:

          “There was some speculation on the part of some scientists, and it got picked up in the popular press. But there was no serious peer-reviewed work which supported this speculation.

          To imply any similarity, let alone equivalence, between such relatively unsupported speculation back in the 60’s and 70’s and the massive volume of peer-reviewed work on global warming today is dishonest in the extreme.”


  2. Darrel says:

    BLK: “As Bjorn Lomborg, the author…>>

    Bjorn Lomborg is a profoundly dishonest person. One of his books has 300 lies in it. See this documented over and over, here:

    Chapter by chapter errors here:

    He may be right about this simple claim, but you always have to check the guy. He’s very sneaky.

    BLK: companies and other interested groups had hired 2,430 lobbyists last year, and that was up 300% from a year ago. So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?”>>

    Obama can control how many lobbyists are hired by private industry?

    Did Obama say he would or could control how many lobbyists are hired by private industry?

    Don’t you think such a claim insults the intelligence of your readers?


    • Blake says:

      Obama said that lobbyists would HAVE NO INFLUENCE in his administration. A lie, D. No, much like rats, lobbyists breed, but to have them whispering in the Congress’ ears, well, he lied. No other way to spin that, D.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “Obama said that lobbyists would HAVE NO INFLUENCE in his administration.”

        What an absurd claim. Lobbying, even by paid individuals is an important part of our governing process and representative feedback system.

        When are you going to show, cite, reference this statement that you say Obama said? You will need to do this to build your case for a “lie.”

        It’s becoming clear that don’t have basic skills in how to snoop around and find evidence to back up your claims. I’m pretty good at it so I did a bit of checking for you. If such a quote existed it would be very easy to find.

        It doesn’t exist.

        Try again.


  3. Big Dog says:

    Now Dar, the reality is that Obama said he would have no lobbyists in his administration and that lobbyists would not influence his administration. He said that DC should run for the people and and be run by politicians and not lobbyists. His rail against lobbyists had to do with having them in his administration and having them influence policy.

    Also, having the number of conflicts of interests he has (Immelt works for a company that stands to gaind substantially from this). That is like having a lobbyist who is not registered as one.

    Obama has lobbyists in his administration, something he said he would not do. A lie (one of the things you can’t see him do).

    He is also allowing lobbyists to steer the debates. They are lining up to their cut of the money and Obama is not stopping it. He said this would end. Another lie.

    So no, what Blake wrote does not insult readers because Blake never claimed Obama could control lobbyists hired by private industry. Blake never said Obama said he would control how many lobbyists are hired. Blake said that Obama said lobbyists would not be in the administration and would not influence the decisions. This is a true statement because Obama did say it.

    What is dishonest is you claiming that Blake said something he did not in order to make it appear as if he is being misleading when in fact you are the one doing it.

    The fact that you would do that is insulting…

    • Darrel says:

      You can’t be serious.

      Blake says: “…companies and other interested groups had hired [x number]” of lobbyists. And then concludes:

      “So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?”

      My point is, companies and interest groups hiring lobbyists has nothing, *No Thing,* to do with Obama or what has said he will do or even can do. But Blake pretends he can blame private industry hiring practices on Obama? That’s insultingly absurd. And you want to defend that?

      BIGD: “…the reality is that Obama said he would have no lobbyists in his administration and that lobbyists would not influence his administration.”>>

      When you start a sentence with “the reality is” it’s best to be dealing with reality.
      If Obama said:

      a) “he would have no lobbyists in his administration”

      b) “lobbyists would not influence his administration.”

      Then you shouldn’t have any trouble quoting him saying exactly this.

      Now he did make strong claims regarding lobbyist reform and setting high standards. And he has carried a great deal of them out. There have been exceptions. Lets look at the details:

      “Obama’s executive order on ethics sets these limits on former lobbyists: they can’t leave the administration and lobby on matters they dealt with in the administration for two years; and lobbyists can’t join agencies they lobbied in the two previous years.”

      There have been three waviers of this rule:

      “The White House has issued three waivers lifting its ban on former registered lobbyists working in the administration. The first was to Bill Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon, so he could become deputy Defense secretary; Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel of the National Partnership for Women and Families; and Cecilia Munoz, the former vice president of the National Council for La Raza. Frye is now the director of policy and projects for first lady Michelle Obama, and Munoz is the director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.”

      Here are his rules. Strict and unprecedented:

      Here is Norm Ornstein praising them:

      Statement of Norm Ornstein
      American Enterprise Institute

      “Restoring trust in government is a prerequisite to enacting good policy and the tough choices the country needs. This ethics policy for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign.”


      • Big Dog says:

        President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House.” Yahoo News

        “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

        — Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
        November 10, 2007

        And he lied about them funding his campaign:
        Lobbyists might be persona non grata on the presidential campaign trail, but that hasn’t put them off of donating to the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) Roll Call

        So the reality is, I was correct.

        • Darrel says:

          The yahoo article is good. I encourage people to read it. Eight thousand people hired, and he it shows what, 12 waviers?

          As your Yahoo News article quotes:

          “Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule,”

          If Obama has an excellent qualified person in front of him he can choose to throw them away to strictly follow something he said, or he can in very rare occasions, set aside his own rule.

          I don’t want a president that is so ridge he can’t make exceptions on occasion. What does twelve represent out of 8,000? .15 %

          The quote from “Des Moines” quote is vague and is further detailed in his rules regarding lobbyists. His claim regarding funding was specifically, according to his rules, with regard to federally registered lobbyists.

          Your “Roll Call” article makes this point and refutes yours (while noting that Obama had 40 donations and McCain 440). To quote:

          “The Obama campaign said it has not changed its policy regarding lobbyist contributions and that it continues to take steps to ensure such contributions are returned.”

          And: ““Because of a law championed by Sen. Obama, lobbyists are now required to disclose their contributions, which gives us another chance to make sure we haven’t taken any money from lobbyists,” Vietor said. “Any contributions from lobbyists that weren’t already returned will be soon.” –Roll Call, ibid

          You should read articles you cite. Using a persons own source against them (by careful reading) is a bit of a specialty of mine.


        • Blake says:

          You attempt to use others sources by twisting things out of context, D- he lied, plain and simple . Don’t play the typical Dem that parses verbs, or says that he only lied .15%. A lie is a lie. e said to expect transparency, but he has been anything but.
          When the head of the Climate committee hires a speedreader to read the 900+ pages of the bill, just because the Reps invoked a rule in the house that insisted that the entire bill be read- and THEN only reads a portion of that bill, that’s not transparency that’s a lie. It does not matter here that it was Henry Waxman who did THIS, this is indicative of the whole disingenuous administration, where they say something that sound really great, but then shake their head, and say, ” You REALLY didn’t expect us to do that, did you?”
          hen there are 2,000= lobbyists all bending someone’s ear in Washington, things have not gotten better, they have gotten worse. Spin that D.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: Don’t play the typical Dem that parses verbs, or says that he only lied .15%. A lie is a lie.”>>

          Getting beyond the irony of this coming from you… I will proceed.

          It does not follow that saying something, and then doing something else, is a lie. You would have to show that the person intended to not follow through on their claim when they made it.

          People change their minds. Circumstances change. If you do this a lot, people will rightfully call you a flip flopper.

          I have explained why any reasonable person would not consider Obama’s tiny fraction of exceptions to his rule a problem.

          Oh that you could be consistent and accurate as often.

          It’s ironic that those on the right chide people for considering Obama some kind of saint. Yet, when if he does something that falls very so slightly short of sainthood, they are quick to pretend he is some kind of a demon.


          ps. You keep saying “out of context” but you never provide or demonstrate an example. It’s not clear that you know what it means to take something “out of context.” It’s as if this is just something you’ve heard and repeat it as a rebuttal. If you are going to make the charge, back it up. Otherwise, it’s meaningless.

      • Blake says:

        Darrel, what about Immelt? He has a whole company dependent on the green tech, and he is OUR FREAKIN’ ENERGY CZAR. Don’t you think there might be the teeniest bit of “conflict of interest here”? Or are you truly blind to the drawbacks here because of your “revered leader”?
        Come on- even Helen eller could see this as a conflict of interest.
        Come on, Man Up here, D.

        • Randy says:

          GE is hardly dependent on green technology.

        • Blake says:

          More than you think, Randy- their jet engines will fall from favor as price of fossil fuels rise- their TV networks lose in the ratings, and their market share has dropped like a stone. G needs something to stay solvent, and green tech is their holy grail, money wise.
          But back to the point- don’t you think having Immelt as the Energy Czar is dishonest, and a conflict of interest big time?

  4. Randy says:

    “GE- the company that is promoting the smartgrid technology, solar panels, and ion- lithium batteries” -Blake

    Smartgrid technology. It’s needed. I have yet to hear a plan for fundamentally changing the way our electric distribution networks operate. That isn’t to say that there isn’t one, but no one has come up with a better one that I have heard. I am open to entertaining any other ideas that exist.

    Solar panels, I love them. Photovoltaics that is. Implemented in the right way they could greatly lessen the stress to the grid caused by people simply powering their homes. To be most efficient though, they need to be plugged into a smart grid.

    Lithium-ion? I am not sure where you heard that these were going to be an integral part of the solution to our energy needs.

    To switch gears a little, we don’t need global warming or CO2 levels to convince us that we can’t sustain ourselves with the current system.

    • Blake says:

      Some of those batteries are for autos, Randy.

      • Randy says:

        OK, cars. That actually makes sense. For the purposes of a grid system however, lithium-ion is very impractical.

        • Blake says:

          True, but where do you plug your car in, Randy? And will your friends let you charge at their house if you run low? That will cost probably 50 bucks, perhaps more after cap and trade.

    • Darrel says:

      BLK: “and will your friends let you charge at their house if you run low?>>

      Yes, they will. The nice thing is, electricity is ubiquitous in our society. And it’s cheap (for a little while longer).

      BLK: That will cost probably 50 bucks, perhaps more after cap and trade.>>

      I owned a business selling electric vehicles in 2006 (lost about $15 grand too) so I know a little about the cost to charge them. My (E-max) full size 2,000 watt, 48 volt scooter (eight 12 volt batts in two strings) would take a full size adult almost 30 miles. The cost to charge it is about 30 cents.

      I was considering the plug in hybrid GM Volt which may never happen now. I have a service business (besides the goats, which are pets) which requires about 20k of driving per year. If I was to charge my GM volt at a customers home I would meter it and pay them for their electricity of course.

      I suspect it would be considerably less than a dollar. Electricity is quite cheap and electric motors are about 90% efficient.

      The problem is the batteries.


      • Blake says:

        The problem has always been the batteries, D- this is why cramming this technology down our throats is wrong- it hasn’t been nearly perfected, so they expect us to buy an Bamamobile POS just because it’s trendy, or because of an onerous law. NO- when the engine gives out in my pickup, I’ll get another engine for around 3,000- instead of a crappy “smartcar” for 20,000. And, until they can show me a truly better way, I’ll use gas.

      • Big Dog says:

        I work 35 miles from where I live and sometimes I have to wait in traffic. I think I will stick with my Jeep. It gets me there and back and the weather is not an issue. Some people have to go to work under just about any condition.

        • Blake says:

          Yes- I am a carpenter (when I can work), so I have needed a pickup my whole life so I can haul equipment- I can’t use a wimpy car, even if I wanted to, which I do not. Having been in wrecks before, I want solid metal around me, not tin foil.

  5. Big Dog says:

    They are trying to put solar panels in Pueblo Colorado but environmentalists are fighting the plan because it covers the ground and takes away habitats.

    True, Randy we don’t need the myth of GW to change what we do but, as Blake says, let’s find something that works BEFORE we get rid of what does.

    • Randy says:

      You are still thinking inside the box. Try peeking outside of it once in a while. A home with it’s own photovoltaics can produce more than enough electricity to sustain itself. Battery technology has been here for awhile that can store generated electricity for home use when the sun isn’t available. What electricity isn’t being used by the individual home can be sold back to the grid. This is what smart grid technology is all about, the ability to keep track of and draw energy from multiple sources. Communities can relieve a great deal of stress from the grid by generating their own energy using a number of different renewable technologies, including photovoltaic panels. This allows for more efficient use of existing finite resources to generate power for more large scale loads like factories and such. Your problem is that you keep thinking that the only way to generate electricity is with a big power plant somewhere. Here’s an idea: Read and learn what a volt is and how a volt is generated. Read and learn what a volt is in relation to a watt. Then start from there when deciding what is and isn’t viable.

      • Big Dog says:

        I completely understand the technology. My Army housing at Fort Polk has solar panels on the roof. I know what the compnents of electricity are, how they are generated and what they mean. My son is an electrician and I was involved in power generation in the Army.

        Though I am not sure who you were talking to, I thought I would answer in case it was I.

        Smart grid can also monitor use and penalize those who use more than the gubmint thinks they should. But I would like to know how long the stored electricity will last. What do you do after a week of cloud cover or two weeks of bad weather? What about parts where there is a shorter day and not as much sun? Seattle might have more problems than Texas…

        • Randy says:

          Exactly why we need smart grid technology. Most renewable energy sources are only useful intermittently. Blake and I recently had this discussion regarding renewable energy. A smart grid can recognize what peak usages are where and how to more efficiently distribute power to where it needs to be from where it is most efficiently being generated at the time.

          Also, I believe you are confusing smart grid technology with smart meters that are being developed. If the government wanted to penalize someone for using more power than others, those penalties could be levied using the current infrastructure. The smart meters that are being developed are programmable by the user of the meter to better monitor their own power usage. If you are afraid of big brother, you could simply not program the meter. The meters cannot detect what loads are plugged into which outlets, only how much current is drawn by each load. True, the meters to support a smart grid are going to have to be smarter. The only real difference though is that the meters will communicate usage in real time as opposed to having your meter read once a month. To make them programmable to monitor your own usage though is just extra bells and whistles.

        • Blake says:

          While I could agree that our electrical grid could use an upgrade, I am thinking that Jeffery Immelt is not the person to do this, nor is his company. Anyone who has driven the price of GE into the ground as he has done should not hold any position more responsible than a janitor. To be Barama’s energy czar is reprehensible and dangerous to the good of the U.S. The man is mentally deficient.

        • a mother says:

          Thanks to the good ole USAF, we are currently living in Germany: Place of Perputual Rain. I have a neighbor who has just one half of his roof covered with solar panels and he sells back energy to the city at least every other month (he likes to keep his “store” up to a certain amount and the city will only pay him when he’s willing to sell at least X amount). While overcast weather may hinder productivity, it doesn’t stop it. The panels here use UV rays which still make it through clouds. While I’m all game for renawable energy, he also told me that he spent 10k euros on his solar panels and all the equipment that goes with them. With today’s exchange rate of $0.6972 to the euro, that would be almost $14,400. Show me a common family with that much money lying around or willing to go into that much more debt. (I use the prices over here because I honestly don’t know how much it will cost in the States and I don’t want to make up any figures.) The technology is expensive and most people can’t afford it or won’t go into debt to get it. I know I won’t be doing it when we retire and buy our own home. Maybe if those nice ole “green” companies would get the manufacturers to lower their prices significantly, it might be another story. For now, I’ll stick with my oil and electrical grids, thank you very much.

      • Blake says:

        As I said in a previous post, I live in a forest- what would you have me do Randy- cut down the trees?

        • Randy says:

          Geothermal. Drill some holes in the ground and use the natural heat from inside the earth. Photovoltaic isn’t for everyone, that is why we need a smart grid. If you are just that geographically screwed that you can’t use your own sources of energy, then use someone elses. How do you get energy now? Is it sufficient for your needs? Part of the beauty of a smart grid is that you can keep all the existing centralized plants that generate electricity and incorporate many smaller decentralized power sources. As the power generation technology evolves, the grid can evolve with it. You don’t have to get rid of anything and replace it with anything else. It can be a gradual process. The infrastructure has to exist though.

        • Blake says:

          Geothermal only works in an unsettled or volcanic part of the earth- not an option here- to drill that far would take literally millions- I am not Al Gore here.

        • Randy says:

          That’s not really true anymore. The technology has progressed quite a bit. Even so, one of the advantages to a smart grid is that power can be routed efficiently over long distances. Like I said, if you are that geographically screwed then you can use someone elses, or power generated at a plant. I guess I just don’t understand your argument against a smart grid. It seems to me that you don’t understand what it is or what solution it provides.

    • Randy says:

      To expand a little, we have plenty of renewable energy sources that are very viable and ready to hit the ground running. They could be made much more efficient if there were a smart grid infrastructure to which they could supply their generated power. Also, no one is talking about getting rid of anything. What they ARE talking about is instead of offering government subsidies to promote the expanded the use of coal and oil, we should offer government subsidies to promote R&D in renewable energy sources and implementation of a smart grid. We are going to be somewhat dependent on the finite resources for, at the very least, the rest of our lives. We certainly can take measures though, right now, to reduce that dependency.

      • Blake says:

        Boy o boy- you need to educate yourself about this cap and trade tax- the carbon credits are a scam that costs you and , but benefits Al Gore, and Big Green.
        All you liberals talk about how much you hate big business, but then this comes along and it’s a lovefest.
        It’s ALL THE SAME- the people get screwed all over a false alarm about climate “change”
        I have news for all of you- change is what climate does-

        • Randy says:

          I have intentionally limited the scope of what I am arguing to renewable energy and a major infrastructure upgrade.

          And what is it exactly Blake, that makes me a liberal?

        • Blake says:

          If I have mischaracterized you , I am sorry- but you do seem to want to overlook the oil and gas we have here at home, and to do that would be short- sighted and, yes, rather liberal in that outlook.
          You can’t scream about Big Oil, without screaming about Big Green also. It’s all the same- just ask Duke Energy.

        • Randy says:

          I do hold some very liberal viewpoints. I also hold some very conservative ones. I also hold views that don’t necessarily agree with a liberal or conservative viewpoint. I am not overlooking finite resources either, I am just arguing for an increase in incentives for renewable energy. It won’t solve all of our problems, but it can solve many of our problems. The more renewable energy we can utilize, the less oil becomes an issue. We WILL run out of it one day. When is an argumentative point. I just don’t understand why you are so resistant to the idea of renewable energy and smart grid technology.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “you need to educate yourself about this cap and trade tax- the carbon credits are a scam…”

          I just read an article in the latest issue of Scientific American that raises some serious issues about the ability of cap and trade to accomplish what it is supposed to. People are gaming the system, no doubt.


        • Blake says:

          Randy- nowhere have I said I am against renewable energy- I AM against having unproven, half a** technology crammed down our throats. Solar panels are fine where they will work- same for the others, but since solar panels, for example, cost around 10,000- 30,000 dollars to install, how many poor people can afford them? Not many- but with this cap and trade BS they will have to buy into this tech, and while after some time, the technologies may be proven and somewhat cheaper- now, in the middle of ALL of our economic troubles, is not the time to try this. It would be far wiser if Barry could get us out of the economic crisis, instead of prolonging it for his political gain.

      • Darrel says:

        Randy’s comments…

        All true. And well said.

  6. E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming…

    More gangsta activity among our Federal Government. This time the EPA on behalf of the Administration regarding the Cap and Trade Bill.
    The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about globa…

  7. The Ultimate Disrespect to Citizens…

    There have many complaints and much protest from people simply wanting our representatives to simply Read The Bill before they sign it. The stimulus Bill was rushed through without it being read and that was one of the big reasons for the Tea Party. Th…

  8. Obama’s hidden bailout of General Electric…

    Money Rules the World
    By: Timothy P. Carney
    Examiner Columnist
    March 4, 2009

    While many companies hire lobbyists to win earmarks, General Electric’s unmatched lobbying force has secured a tax increase — or its equivalent — in President Barack Obama’s…