For years the Obama administration has used creative accounting and selective deportation statistics to boost the president’s image as an executive dedicated to enforcing Congress’ immigration laws. The claim is that Obama had a stronger deportation record than his predecessors. The tactic is part of a strategy to convince the enforcement-first crowd that illegal immigration is outdated and the goal is to pave the way for a mass legalization and doubling of immigration.
Five years later, however, the only people convinced by Obama’s “record deportations” claim are immigration reporters and anti-enforcement advocates who are now using it to criticize him in the run-up to the midterm elections.
Therefore, anyone reading The Contemplative Thinker, or who takes a walk down Unscrupulous Lane could easily identify who these “anti – anti” enforcement or special interest groups are simply by reading in either the illegal immigration or special interest groups sections in the Categories drop down menu section of this site.
At any rate it is important for me to establish some ground breaking news for you prior to November to better equip you if you happen to be a voter, or a person who basically enjoys being informed about our Nation and where it seems to be headed.
It is purported that Ronald Reagan was a man of the old school and we should thank God for his leadership. President Reagan would not even go into the Oval Office albeit, rushing out of bed, or late night with the Royals, or even a weekend day or night without first putting on the bare minimum, a sport coat and a tie. That is indeed respect.
The kind of respect that he could care less if anyone ever knew. It was assuredly a deeply held conviction for honor, tradition, ethics, and values that Mr. Reagan did not say anything to anyone. Nor was anything that faced him or President Kennedy to big or too large for them to take on without shriveling up to it.
Whereby on the one hand we have a president who says, “the federal government is to inactive to handle” matters such as illegal immigration; consequently, for Barack Obama doing the opposite by Executive Order is more arrogant than brave or smart. Please consider the following “Inaction.”
Someone must be getting the point out there that – whatever Barack Obama has tried to do via his phone and pen scenario (Executive Orders) – it certainly seems as though whatever he has done in either Foreign and Domestic policy matters have been a complete failure.
Obama has tried to clarify his administration’s deportation rhetoric with select audiences since at least 2011 when, according to the Washington Times, Obama told a round table of Hispanic reporters:
Top administration officials have directed 21,000 border patrol officers to retreat whenever illegal immigrants throw rocks at them, and to avoid getting in front of foreign drug-smugglers’ vehicles as they head north with their drug shipments.
“Agents shall not discharge firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles… agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves,” said the instructions, issued Mar. 7, under the signature of Michael Fisher, chief of U.S. Border Patrol.
Agents were also directed to keep their weapons holstered when drug smugglers drive by. This is not unlike the Administration in Mexico pursuant to the talks that transpired between Mexico and the United States last week.
Agents cannot use guns against “a moving vehicle merely fleeing from agents,” say the instructions. Now to us this news is so encouraging we are prompted to ask, “If a fleeing vehicle moving at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour would not everyone around wonder why it is fleeing?”
The new instructions do allow agents to use guns to defend themselves from vehicles that drive at them. “Agents shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle unless the agent has a reasonable belief that… deadly force is being used against an agent,” the new instructions say.
However, the instructions also suggest that officers be penalized if they do not step back. Agents “should not place themselves in the path of a motor vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path,” according to new instructions. The new policy “seems to be a response to political pressure from special interests,” Shawn P. Moran, vice president of the Border Patrol agents’ union, said in a telephone interview. After all why not look at the Open Borders advocacy group, or maybe even look into the work that Bill and Matilda Gates, George Soros, or Mark Zuckerberg are doing with their some, new found riches.
The new curbs were praised by advocates for greater immigration, including Juanita Molina, director of the Border Action Network. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, and Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Menendez is one of the drafters of the June 2013 Senate immigration bill, which would boost the inflow of legal immigrants and guest workers up to 40 million over the next decade. During the same period, roughly 40 million Americans will turn 18.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), the top Democrat on the House immigration policy and border security subcommittee, also called on Customs and Border Protection to be more forthcoming.
These activists include the leaders of such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Blurring the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, radical immigration activists depict any calls for the strict enforcement of immigration laws as manifestations of racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia.
Speaking of blurring the lines of distinction, we are not sure if any organization is more out of touch with the issues as these folks mentioned. Blurring the notions of racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia are catch phrases aimed in large part to confuse or play upon the empathy of those who are borderline in their own personal decisions.
We ask this question in response, “Where is the Nation’s security even mentioned within the collective conscience of these organizations? This is why we wonder if these are noble efforts. We believe that U.S. sovereignty and national security be at the front of every decision up for consideration. Moreover, it would be nice to see this language in these organizations mission statements. But nonetheless as it shapes up concerning special interest groups, lobbyists, and advocacy groups nothing whatsoever is found in the offering documents of these organizations.
It still remains, how can we get amnesty for our membership, how can we assure illegal immigrants Constitutional rights, and the big one, how can we get the U.S. taxpayer to opt for more for these people?
For the most part I believe that Sean Hannity means well, mind you, I also feel as though he can be a bit impetuous at certain times. Of course lately with a trying-to-be-a-reverse on Mr. Putin, President Obama who is lame when it comes to foreign policy, I believe that Barack Obama is simply waiting for Putin to step-in-it which is about to happen.
I believe that all of this occupation of Crimea the sending of the troops to both the Ukraine and outlying territories is far more a threat that an action delivered on. The brutal notion for me is that I believe that Obama and the Ukraine and Crimea are going to win what it is they want.
According to Hannity, “So we got a community organizer against the former KGB leader who is getting his butt kicked and embarrassed and humiliated on the world stage,” Hannity said. “The Russian media keeps showing a picture of [Obama] in Martha’s Vineyard, riding his little bicycle with his little helmet on. It’s so humiliating.”
Dear Sean Hannity:
Humiliation very much like embarrassment are subjective thoughts or feelings that one may generate; however, it is important to point out that not one person is capable of embarrassing you. And ditto for humiliation – I feel that these two behaviors cannot be forced on anyone by another source. It packs the scenario of only one can embarrass and or humiliate themselves by actions caused which results in the behaviors.
Furthermore, why are you using my airwaves to launch you childish rubbish. When various actions appear on the world stage, it is quite obvious that you will use your recently gained power to rub the rubbish everywhere.
Let us look at what you have written, or who has quoted you on the Fox News Insider. Starting from the third paragraph let’s come to what is so hard for the members of Congress to do…talk to each other and hopefully come to a compromise. Right then…we do have a community organizer-Junior Senator cum President going up against a real bully type in former KGB leader and whomever is getting their butts kicked will be decided in the middle to late rounds in this match.
You again state, “The Russian media keeps showing a picture of [Obama] in Martha’s Vineyard, riding his little bicycle with his little helmet on. It’s so humiliating.” Okay let us peruse these images. What Obama is doing is setting a great example because in most states helmets are required as is a license. Take a look at the statistical data where the per annum death toll arranged by those riders who do not wear helmets is roughly, 10,000. (Source citation here.)
Still with me? Great! So let us put this entire ridiculous mouth espousal to rest and assign blame on photojournalists. How would you feel if you were out intentionally on a summer day flabby and bear chested?
The only bit of Russian laughter that I receive is when I see the same person in a wrestling togs whipping some tiny adolescent boy.
OBAMA’s lack of knowledge in areas of Foreign Policy
What is coming more and more, even day by day, and finally we know now that President Obama is not prepared, to plan or implement any Foreign Policy with matters in Crimea or the significant invasion that is occurring in the Ukraine at present.
The implications of his lack of planning are currently frustrating (not wanting to mention embarrassing) as well they should be insofar as it is America as a whole that is suffering on the international platform.
To think even for an instant that America has had a solid position for at least the last sixty-five years which of course is for the most part designed, constructed, and implemented by successive Republican controlled legislation and presidential administrations for nearly a century.
All one really need to do is look at The Cold War. This is not mentioned because Barack Obama believes that the Cold War does not exist. Moreover, we think that it is safe to understand that any and all Democrat Party members as well as those Obama supporters in the main-stream media are exhausting themselves pushing these last rounds of the lack of foreign policy on President Bush.
Notwithstanding the utter ignorance by those who engage in the “Bush Bashing;” we find it critical to observe President Obama’s record as a U.S. Senator and find his own positions a matter of record in Congressional update information. For further reading please see…click here.)
Don’t You Just Hate It when Alleged Responsible People Project Inaccurate Information
An organization that publishes many of the issues that I write about sent me an email the other day to see if I had any comments on a recent poll and/or the written commentary that went along with it; an opportunity that I have been unable to shake since viewing and reviewing the article since its publication.
The article which I am referring to is at none other than the Pew Research Center’s section called, Fact Tank News in the Numbers written by Ana Gonzales – Barrera. The article that is titled, Record number of deportations in 2012 is generally lacking any of The Pew Institutes integrity for truth in reporting and carelessly allowed the article to be published.
The “Alleged Responsible People” mentioned in my title is Ana Gonzales – Barrera, who proffers such self –titles as Research Associate at the Hispanic Trends Project. Putting this title in an as-it-were type vernacular, thrusts an interested or more knowledgeable reader into a position of looking to see if, in fact, the Hispanic Trends Project is part of The Pew Research Institute. And it is, as we know from their good work in other area projects.
Before anyone gets uppity with my assessment please understand that I have already viewed the writer’s sources which openly has admitted to publishing information that was given to them by President Obama and it was in fact full of “various inaccuracies” of number pilfering. Please see by clicking here a more accurate report.
This weekend, I read about the proceedings at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix, Arizona as told by Floyd Brown, editor and also the Political Analyst, Military/Defense specialist for Capital Hill Daily website under title of The Scariest Military Retreat Since 2700 B.C.
According to Mr. Brown’s report, “Many of the speakers at the conference focused on domestic problems, but the discussion turned chilling when we probed threats to peace and security around the world. As so we believe here at The Contemplative Thinker. Espousing just a bit on what the Obama administration is doing to America’s military is nothing shy of dangerously disgusting.
In one session, Mr. Brown shared the podium with Trevor Loudon, a native of New Zealand. “I was fascinated by his unique perspective. Despite not being from the United States, he spoke with more passion about America and her strategic defenses than most Americans ever would.” And as a reporter, writer, and especially a U.S. Army veteran, the emotions that Brown experienced are indeed hair-raising and humbling.
You see, Loudon is worried about what will happen as America continues retreating from world leadership and allowing her military to be further degraded. It could be the ugliest retreat since the first war in recorded history, almost 5,000 years ago. Moreover, when one considers what retreating actually is, when defined, please take little or no heed to what the Obama administration would love to make us believe.
Retreating is so much more that a movement back, withdrawal from a position, troop withdrawal, or any other signal or order to relocate one’s troops from where they are. Retreating can also be a military function of backing down; furthermore, it could be stated that leaving, especially when hurried is definitely a time of retreating.
Loudon stated emphatically that a world with America in retreat is a more dangerous world, especially in regards to China. He reminded the audience that the leadership of China is still Communist. He admonished us to “not believe the propaganda that Red China has goodwill toward America.”
“They would collapse you in a minute, if they felt they had the strength and leverage to do it,” he said.
Moving along just three days when one stops to look into the Ukrainian matter and what Russia is now doing in Crimea is basically nothing shy of history repeating again on the same territory. Enough to the point that it serves as a point to review and strategize the necessity to reassess U.S. Foreign Policy – of course, that is if such a policy exists.
For centuries, Ukraine has been ground zero of an ongoing struggle between despotic rulers and people yearning to be free. The territory we know as Ukraine has been conquered, partitioned, and ruled by Poles, Ottomans, Hungarians, Austrians, Germans, and Russians for the last thousand years. Since the middle ages, the Ukrainian people have experienced self-government for only a few short periods.
And these periods of freedom have inevitably been followed by dark nights of repression, including the darkest under Joseph Stalin’s Soviet rule. Furthermore, it is not at all a shortcoming to review the history of the Cold War.
Currently the Obama administration has tucked tail and resembles a pathetic and cheap reply of a nation really on the verge of losing sovereignty. At this point, it is impossible to know what will happen in the weeks ahead. Perhaps Russian tanks will invade, and Putin will oversee a forced occupation of Ukraine.
No matter what, though, the Ukrainian people want freedom. They want to continue building a more prosperous future, just like the surrounding territories of the former Soviet empire.
The problem is Obama’s failed policies. He has ignored the freedom seekers in Ukraine, despite America’s history of providing aid and material support to freedom-seeking people. Under our current president, it seems all of that is changing.
Obama eases penalties for businesses hiring illegal immigrants
40 percent decrease in fines belies rhetoric
The Obama administration regularly cuts a break for businesses that hire illegal immigrants, reducing their fines by an average of 40 percent from what they should be, according to an audit released Tuesday that suggests the government could be doing more to go after unscrupulous employers.
According to the audit, conducted by the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cut one business’s fine from $4.9 million to slightly more than $1 million — a 78 percent drop.
Investigators said the reduction is legal, but it may be undercutting the administration’s goal of getting tough on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
“The knowledge that fines can be significantly reduced may diminish the effectiveness of fines as a deterrent to hiring unauthorized workers,” the inspector general said.
The report was released the same day that a coalition of business groups wrote a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, asking him to pass an immigration bill this year. The business groups said they supported Mr. Boehner’s list of immigration principles, which would give businesses a new supply of legal guest workers while granting legal status to most illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
While most of the attention in the immigration debate goes to illegal immigrants themselves, analysts say the problem would be much smaller if businesses would abide by employment laws.
Under President Obama, the federal government was supposed to be putting more of an emphasis on going after employers. ICE specifically announced that it would conduct more audits of the I-9 forms all businesses are required to keep demonstrating that their employees are authorized to work in the U.S.
The goal was to try to ramp up pressure on businesses to hire legal workers.
“This audit confirms what I’ve found in reviewing ICE audit records obtained through FOIA,” Ms. Vaughan said in an email. “Some field offices are conducting worksite enforcement (albeit on a tight leash) as if they actually mean to deter and punish illegal employment. Others do not take it seriously and are just going through the motions. Their goal is to rack up enough audits so that the administration can use the numbers to claim that it is vigorously enforcing the law.”
The inspector general’s report said ICE submitted notices totaling fines of more than $52.7 million from 2009 through 2012, but ended up charging only $31.2 million — for a 40 percent break for businesses.
Investigators said the agency is allowed to reduce fines if it seems the businesses’ finances can’t handle a large penalty.
Investigators said overall, ICE showed little consistency in how it applied sanctions. Some field offices gave out far more warnings and far fewer fines than other offices.
All businesses are required to store the I-9 forms submitted by employees that show their legal work status.
TRANSITION FROM THEORY TO FACT: THEORY WORKS WHEN ENFORCEMENT IS OF PRIME CONCERN
As previously promised today is the day that we make the transition. This transition involves the economic theory [open market] of rudimentary and fundamental postulates such as consistent rational thinking, with self-interest, and the desired act of purpose in obtaining something that we believe will enhance our lives. However, I am sure that we – all of us – want very similar needs, wants, and utility satisfaction to be granted at the lowest cost available to us.
We refer to the fact that an immigration policy with rules, procedures and laws does exist and that, for a very good reason. However, in order for any law to work, or procedure followed let us just complete the obvious – a law is nothing more than words on a sheet of paper, that when leadership, and especially enforcement agencies put forth the energy to support the law as well as the citizenry that enacted the moral values must not be wavering.
We are of the opinion that with the proper means of supporting our leadership especially through enforcement that when basic laws are disregarded, then people make up their own rules unless this situation has the very least – integrity – that is, doing the bare minimum of enforcement to maintain sovereignty of the United States. Please see below for crime within the system.
Millions of people are screaming everything from discrimination to racial profiling. Furthermore, at anytime that a newly instigated program is started and is successful we ask where is the moral values of our leadership? Such as Section 287(g) enforcement for communities.
The biggest difference between American immigration policy and Australia’s equivalent program is that in Australia their program is not put to the mercy of a non-constitutional-wannabe-king who hangs out with a pen and a phone.
Now is time for the news. It is rather obvious to us that 11 million people do not just come to another nation, take up residence, and that is just about it until certain special interest groups get involved.
Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced. Washington’s failure to fix them is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security. The overriding purpose of our immigration system is to promote and further America’s national interests and that is not the case today (Please click here for complete report).
I would really like the opportunity to ask Mr. Obama that very question; our immigration system is in obvious need of restructuring, with all due respect Sir, what have you done within the rule of law to assist making it better?
Remember Section 287(g) of the INS Act? This particular section was enacted for the sole purpose for making community living “communities” more safe to live in. Therefore, the United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement (USICE) where then hired and paid in advance to assist with identifying illegal immigrants and taking them to booking to free up ICE time. This program worked like magic until illegal’s started gripping to special interest groups then all of the sudden – out of nowhere, came “they are racial profiling” and this is discriminatory.
And Eric Holder’s Justice Department led an all out order to stop Section 287(g). And after suing at least 15 different states it was the local police and their states that electively stopped the program.
Or let us just mention E-Verify. As businesses were in hog heaven making bigger profits at the cost of illegal labor BIG BUSINESS originally started with “it is a crap shoot.” And again with special interest’s it was shut down.
Now that they have started to reenact E- Visa Verification who do you think they’ve hired to verify the old “crap shoot” verifying system? E-Verify.
What does all of this mean given economic theory? When U.S. government officials are caught and arrested for letting the cocaine, weed, and/or heroin or cash bring them to their knees as well as some Border Patrol Agents and ICE officials, AFT officers, and all of their management being involved as well then the system begins to break down.
Let us apply added benefit v added cost in here to solidify. Illegal member of MS-13 (major crime gang) without proper identification decides on moving north to America what are his added benefits. Let us start with anonymity; no one knows who this guy is so no criminal record is involved. Hum benefits… let us see now this guy has automatically upward mobility with some sort of job (that an American has lost), does he worry about his latest bullet wound. Nope because now this person has health care and it is probably for free. Oh but wait…our newest member of our society is very hungry, no matter, let us get him some food stamps and allow him to purchase weed with them as well. I think it is fair to say at this point that when someone – anyone elects to come over the U.S. border they instantly have more privileges than the Ward of any state.
Continuing from our earlier blog article, Economic Theory and Illegal Immigration, it is again noted that according to many renown economists, is the notion that they believe in studying individual behavior to assess and draw conclusions for a group of people to be most effective in reducing crime.
Again most economic theory begins with the assumption that the best model of how the world works rests on the idea of [important] of a rational, self-interested individual who act with purpose to achieve the highest level of satisfaction possible knowing that they will be confronted with certain circumstances.
In most disciplines and/or professions define rationality as consistent thinking. However economists take a small but different approach. Economists define rationality as “choosing the option that one believes will increase his satisfaction the most when presented with a constrained choice.”
When one looks at the variance of definitions there is not that much whatsoever. In fact the only inferences that I am able to draw is that economists use “choice” whilst others use “certain circumstances.” Either way we have a definition of rationality from both stating it is consistent thinking. We do not have any difficulty with either’s definition.
What do these theories mean about self-interest? One thing that hit me straight up was in the notion that self-interest does not mean or even remotely equate to selfishness. In fact let all of us remember that the decision involves choice, rational thinking, and purpose to achieve gaining the greater satisfaction or improvement of life. It is important to note that this decision can come from buying a new shirt or by giving away the shirt off one’s back. Again it should be noted that in a market economy people act to improve their well-being, not necessarily their wealth or number of possessions.
If we assume that individuals are rational and self-interested, then we can think of a simple rule that will lead us to maximize our satisfaction/improvement given any option. That rule is to compare the added benefit from an action to what the added costs will be. If the added benefits exceed the added costs, then most often people will undertake the action.
Now back to the example of criminal activity. According to the economist’s, they would look at a criminal and say that if she commits a crime it is because she has made a rational choice. Essentially therefore, the person weighed the benefits from the crime against the added costs and determined that the added benefits of the crime outweighed the added costs and therefore, with purpose committed the crime. The practical implication of this concerning public policy is that if one wanted to reduce criminal activity, then one must reduce the benefits of committing the crime and one must increase the costs.
Now that is about as basic as it comes. It is just like saying if there is enough demand for something then people will just about find the costs. How anything as simple as this basic assumption could somehow go wrong is I believe something only humans are able to engineer.
Back to the criminal data assessment. We have mentioned that given the age characteristics as well as educational level, family status as children and adults, race, and of course psychological profiles all are characteristics of humankind; regardless, of having anything to do with crime. But if only for the moment I would like to introduce the rationale of why people do the things they do – or better still is as to what limits will people go to make themselves satisfied with their dispositions?
We can all agree that educational level can assist when time to look for a new position, right. So let us assume our newly paroled lady did not get the opportunity to finish high school. Ut oh! She is there filling out applications when to sudden the question comes up – have you ever been arrested, or convicted of a crime? Now there is an altogether set of circumstances. Most people might allude to the notion of “okay let’s see, we have a high school dropout that has done a short stint in the big house, what gives with that…”
Who stated anything about criminal activity being a rational choice? Tomorrow we will begin to look at policies, and what should we do with somewhere between 14 to 30 million illegal immigrants who were given choices and for some reason applied some economics theories without or even with rational thought.
ECONOMIC THEORIES AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
I am sure we have all heard the expression, “We want it all, and we want it now.” We let us start by linking in some economics, social sciences, religion, and pure fantasy for this article.
On the religious level or for Christians we are instructed that although we may think we all have needs and wants, yet furthermore in copious quantities we are outright told not to worry about such little things; moreover, we are told all of our needs and most of our wants are known to our Creator. Furthermore, and what I find amazing lies within the notion that we will be provided with both our needs and our wants.
Just one step further, we are even instructed to ask, yes ask for our needs and wants and they will be rendered. Notice how I do not want to give even a sign that I may know the answer, therefore, I openly admit to all my religious friends who subscribe to a different name, could you write in or comment how and particularly where the same notion is taught in your religion. Thanking you in advance.
Now on to social sciences. Would you say that your focus is on an individual – or – a group level? Some social sciences make the individual the focus of their research while other disciplines may focus on the groups of individuals in which to maximize their research potential. It is a good thing that this article is not about the benefits of individual versus group behavior.
Yet this article is going to use (at times) both individuals and groups especially with relationship to crime and the activity of being an illegal immigrant residing in the United States. This is definitely where we employ simple economic strategies to give us a way to define why a person would enter the realm of illegal living.
A very distinctive characteristic in the field of economics is its focus on the individual. While other social scientists, often examine the characteristics of groups and use group behavior to explain or predict individual behavior in our experience can and does solidify false claims by its nature. We cannot even infer that anything that happens within a group (let alone what group) can or does parallel that of an individual. Economists do exactly the opposite. They gather data on individual behavior to discuss the behavior of potentially those who are in groups.
Examining criminal behavior is a classic example and a good one too. One method of looking at such behaviors starts with criminals as a group. We could try to find criminal characteristics such as age, educational level, family status as children and adults, race, and various psychological profiles. Then we would draw inferences from these characteristics and try to change criminals as a group.
Suppose we find that 60 percent of convicted robbers are twenty-five year old urban males with an eighth-grade education who have been convicted of a crime before the age of fifteen, come from a single parent family and are unmarried. From this information, we might try to explain how each of these characteristics contributes to criminal activity, and then as most politicians do begin to initiate policies to reduce crime.
We could initiate a policy that offers people within a group the opportunity to increase their education level of …urban males. Economists instead use theories of individual behavior to draw conclusions about what sorts of policies would be effective in reducing crime.
Next within our policy making group of economists move into their own assumptions such as a staunch belief that our world works because of an idea that people – for the most part – are rational, self-interested folks who acts purposefully to achieve the highest level of satisfaction possible while operating under certain circumstances…to be taken up in detail at the start of the next blog entry. Until then…
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S “POLICY INITIATIVES” ARE A FAILURE…
Just as our title implies, it will be years perhaps even decades before the chaotic menagerie of Obama’s sometimes held close to the breast pocket, without very many people in Washington D.C, or clearly elsewhere having even the slightest bit of knowledge of what this man has been capable of doing.
Far be it from me, who says that everything done on domestic improvements within the Nation should as a matter of due-diligence be directed toward the American people if, for nothing else, the very feedback the president’s advisors, policy experts, and need based function people (perhaps even unknown) can render their reasons for public policy enhancements or how about “shovel ready jobs.”
I will admittedly agree that if as in the 1970s one was being charged $95.00 per toilet seat when the real cost was $1.50 and so forth with nails, and just about every government contract, without proper checking either through one’s “people” or making sure the matters are well in control. There can be only a few words that can simply identify that incompetence, and corruption is the first that comes to mind.
I also openly admit that through The Heritage Foundation and their distinguished blog, The Foundry, information is now being released. As for me I am not sure if this man and those he surrounds himself with are really as stupid as they have proven they are, it just seems to me that imagine that you are the President. And you have worked for months coming up with the name which was The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that he knew well in advance he would be needing the funds. I am only able to cover a portion of these findings, however, I will post another page if you care to see what this person has done.
As a follow up to the Green Graveyard overview, this post provides additional information concerning the funding for each of the now-bankrupt green energy companies. In one of the most extensive compilations to date, Heritage has identified 19 bankrupt green energy companies that were unable to succeed even with the government’s promise to provide generous financial assistance totaling a whopping $2.6 billion.
1. Abound Solar: George W. Bush’s Administration first offered this Colorado-based company federal assistance in 2007 to the tune of $3 million as well as a $400 million loan guarantee. Before announcing bankruptcy in June 2012, Abound was promised an additional $374.6 million from the Obama Administration. The company was also offered $12.6 million in federal tax credits. During its short-lived heyday, Abound received the distinction of ranking 17th out of “100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America.”
Government’s Bad Bet: $ 790.3 million
2. Solyndra: Despite the fact that Vice President Joe Biden once hailed this now-infamous company and its $535 million loan guarantee as an “unprecedented investment this Administration is making in renewable energy and exactly what the Recovery Act is all about,” Solyndra succumbed to Chapter 11 status in September 2011. That’s two short years after being offered federal financial assistance. Despite supportive statements and visits from top Obama Administration officials, Solyndra was unable to avoid its fate in the Green Graveyard.
Government’s Bad Bet: $570 million (includes federal loans and state tax breaks not listed)
3. A123 Systems: Having been showered with visits from a host of elected and government officials during the Obama Administration (then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), to name only a few), government funding for A123 actually began in 2001 during the Bush Administration. The company declared bankruptcy in October 2012, a little over one year from the date that President Obama offered this encouraging remark: “There is A123, a clean energy manufacturer in Michigan that just hired its 1000th worker as demand has soared for its vehicle components. Companies like these are taking root and putting people to work in every corner of the country.” And this isn’t the only form of praise A123 received. Secretary Chu called A123 “a great example of how we are working with industries to create jobs, strengthen our manufacturing industry, and help our auto companies compete in the global market.” In fact, A123 is also still listed as a “Hall of Fame” company on the Small Business Innovation Research website.
Now how can these alleged experts, advisors, and policy analyst be making the unabashed biggest mistakes in the totality of their professional careers. Again if you were president – wouldn’t you at least find out who the best most accountable accountant there was to hire. No kidding here gang, I sit and read reports of the staff at Heritage Foundation, it is simply amazing how often one of their scholars get it ALL right.
Please read on by clicking here.