Excerpted from The Liberal War on Transparency by Chris Horner
So, Al Gore came to do good and ended up doing really, really well, according to the Washington Post. That’s actually not unique for Washington, except possibly as a matter of scale: Gore went from being worth $2 million when leaving office to about $100 million now.
Gore, of course, “invested” in or otherwise found profitable arrangements with many companies whose financing mostly comes courtesy of the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly in that private money flocks to that which politicians wed themselves to — the “halo effect” — on the knowledge that once the spigot opens it is difficult to turn off for fear of having a taxpayer-funded flop on their hands.
I couldn’t help but be reminded, by this story, of the personnel executing these programs for President Obama, he of the $90 billion in “green energy” money squandered on boondoggles whose own owners’ sales pitch for the dough was unless you give me this money, I won’t exist.
For example, in one of those funny coincidences of life, did you know that Obama appointed the CEO of Al Gore’s own pro-green energy advocacy group, Alliance for Climate Protection, to be his Assistant Secretary of Energy for Renewable Energy? I detail this in a chapter of my new book, The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information “Criminal” (greens hailed this move as akin to his coup of plucking Van Jones!)
After it became clear that she was not about to be confirmed for a higher position to which Obama moved her, Ms. Zoi moved out to start a Gore-like fund with some guy named Soros. But while Zoi was in government, I obtained some of her emails under the Freedom of Information Act. I also obtained a whole lot more discussing her orders and actions. More on that in the book, but here’s the big-picture.
Proving that transparency in government can be as entertaining as it is illuminating, I got hold of an email from Ms. Zoi’s close pal, the Managing Director of Solyndra’s outside political consulting firm. Just a note to let her know he was “at [the] poolside bar at Caesars having a drink” with her “Senior Advisor” (a twenty-something poli-sci grad). Right about then, back in Washington, President Obama’s political team was leaning on colleagues in government to get a campaign bundler’s company — Solyndra — a historically wasteful loan guarantee, soon to be predictably squandered.
Cheers! Other emails showed assistant secretary Zoi bantering as close confidantes do with yet a different partner in Solyndra’s political firm, for example arranging dinner at her house that weekend which promised to be a blast as “a couple of other fun political animals will be there”. Other Zoi emails showed her enlisting the same firm, apparently pro bono (although that would seem to be a legal no-no under The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 USC § 1342), to help pull together materials she wanted to consider when developing DOE’s campaign, pushing the same agenda but from the inside.
But, no, that whole Solyndra and “green stimulus” boondoggle and the cronies that made out at the taxpayer’s expense, that came about due to the merits.
With the current administration, risibly self-congratulating as the most transparent in history, we now know to ask sooner than we did with Solyndra, even if by the time that scandal broke I had already used information requests to expose the basic but thorough corruption of Obama’s “green energy” operation. For example, another of my FOIA requests to Zoi’s fiefdom in the Department of Energy led to a treasure trove of emails exposing what Investor’s Business Daily called “The Big Wind Cover-Up.” This also uncovered the collaborative effort to smear the Spanish “green jobs” economics professor and his team’s work documenting the true disaster of liberal plans to reorganize America’s economy as “the clean energy economy.”
FOIA allowed me to chase down the genesis of this panic-driven attempt at discrediting people viewed as political opponents, this instance confirmed aggressive violations of Barack Obama’s promises of transparency and to banish lobbyists from insider roles in the policy process.
But documents pried out of the administration also let slip revealing details of how this defense of a “renewables” industry that Solyndra later made famous but all along made Gore and other well-connected types wealthy was coordinated with industry lobbyists and left-wing pressure groups. These included Soros’s project, the Center for American Progress, using the industrial wind lobby as the go-between in anticipation of DOE claiming, for example, to Congress that it “had no direct contact with” CAP or another pressure group to which the windmill lobbyists served as DOE’s “cutout” contact.
IBD described these records as being as substantively explosive as the previously described “Climategate” leak in 2009 of emails and computer code, because it showed senior Obama political appointees doing the bidding for industries that were propped up in the name of an anti-energy ideology and crony capitalism joined with the assault on abundant domestic energy sources that work and therefore also disfavored for ideological reasons.
With truths like these trickling out while we still have access to public records, it’s no surprise that Al Gore did so well “investing.” How he does if taxpayers decide that enough is enough remains to be seen.
Christopher C. Horner is a Washington, D.C. attorney and author of the new book The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information “Criminal” (Threshold Editions, published October 2, 2012)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steve B says: Many if not most politicians from USA, Australia, Europe are mostly left wing and follow the fascist business model.
Sorry Steve, but this is breathtakingly bonkers and wrong on so many levels. How on earth do left wing politicians follow an extreme right wing or a Fascist business model? What is a Fascist business model, do you have any references for this amazing statement?
Al Gore has such faith in green investments that his investment outfit is now abandoning green investments. Is Al Gore really green?
“Al Gore bails from green energy investment”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/al-gore-bails-from-green-energy-investment/
SEC records for Generation Investment Management LLP
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1375534/000117266112000799/generation2q12.txt
Has someone researched how much green stimulus money has found its way directly or indirectly into Al Gore’s pockets?
Garethman,
Obama was asked why he does not favor lower tax rates, since every time tax rates are lowered, federal revenue increases. Obama’s answer: it is a matter of “fairness”. Confiscate from the ‘rich’ and give it to the ‘poor’.
That is essentially, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. The basic Communist doctrine. Sorry you can’t see it.
Thank you Mr Böehm. Interesting point, however that information is however still your interpretation. I have supplied you with references which illustrate why your position is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps you could do the same? Communism like capitalism is much more complex than ensuring those who earn more shoulder more of the tax burden than the poor. Das Kapital is a bit of a heavy read, but if you are interested these two sites may help. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/f/Is-Barack-Obama-a-Socialist.htm or more theoretically http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/valach/fundamentals-of-communism.html. The trouble with political theory is it is used to insult without really understanding the detail, calling Romney a fascist or Obama a Communist does nothing for informed political debate because both concepts have no basis in reality. What is interesting is why a person who believes in the standard view of climate change is likely to be politically centrist or left, while dissenters ( much better term than deniers ) tend to hail from right wing capitalist origins. I suspect the reason is that the right tends to emphasise moral individuality in any action, while the left tends to focus on social action and responsibility.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
They say they’re saving the Earth, but, really, it’s all about their bank accounts.
Garethman,
I don’t need links that split hairs over ideology to know that if it has feathers, and waddles, and quacks, it is a duck. Obama is a Communist, plain and simple. Forcible redistribution of wealth on the basis of need is tells me all I need to know.
But I have a question for you: who needs 30 phones?
Garethman says:
October 14, 2012 at 10:17 am
Thank you for your response. Both links are written by Obama supporters engaged in the same clouding of the issue as you are. The BBC is also not an unbiased source, and most people, especially in the US, are not aware that the labels used (Conservative for example ) have a different meaning there than in the US. The comments on the BBC article are particularly revealing and most support my position. Do you swallow everything you read without question or research? Perhaps you have another goal in mind.
Garethman says:
October 14, 2012 at 10:23 am
Steve B says: Many if not most politicians from USA, Australia, Europe are mostly left wing and follow the fascist business model.
Sorry Steve, but this is breathtakingly bonkers and wrong on so many levels. How on earth do left wing politicians follow an extreme right wing or a Fascist business model? What is a Fascist business model, do you have any references for this amazing statement?
____________________________________________________________________________
I don’t have the time to write up this stuff. The point you to this site.
http://www.goldenjackass.com/main5.html
Thank you Steve, essentially they say
“Corruption in Fascist Business Model” — to instruct as to the dire effect of deeply engrained sponsored nurtured corruption as the tight relationship develops between the state and big corporations, undetected by the mainstream, destructive to the system,the corrupted systems are the big insolvent US banks, the secretive USFed central bank, the obedient regulators (SEC, CFTC, ISDA), the wrenching mortgage business with its MERS title database, the endless costly undeclared wars that result in stolen gold bullion, the vile shell game Exchange Traded Funds with important backdoor access given to the COMEX, itself a hotbed of naked shorting, and the raft of phony USEconomic data led by the GDP, CPI, and Jobs. in the midst of the unstoppable deterioration where foreign entities defend against the falling USDollar and its badly engrained corruption, the Gold haven will continue to look more attractive and eventually skyrocket”
Er, yes of course. I’m still puzzled as to why left wing European government would follow such weird stuff. Remember, lefties do not form close alliances with big business, that’s capitalism, a different political and opposite group.
D Böehm says:
October 14, 2012 at 10:36 am
Garethman,
Obama was asked why he does not favor lower tax rates, since every time tax rates are lowered, federal revenue increases. Obama’s answer: it is a matter of “fairness”. Confiscate from the ‘rich’ and give it to the ‘poor’.
That is essentially, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. The basic Communist doctrine. Sorry you can’t see it.
=====================================================================
“All animals are created equal ……. but some animals are more equal than others.”
I know. He’s only one of the players in this game but one of the few real “hockey sticks” in all this has been Al Gore’s bank account.
(PS He’s dumped alot of his “green” investments. Really committed to “the cause”.)
As far as I am concerned Gore and his ilk are nothing more than crooks and modern day green carpetbaggers.
D Böehm says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Garethman,
I don’t need links that split hairs over ideology to know that if it has feathers, and waddles, and quacks, it is a duck. Obama is a Communist, plain and simple. Forcible redistribution of wealth on the basis of need is tells me all I need to know.
But I have a question for you: who needs 30 phones?
Garethman observes,
Sorry mate, when the evidence of ducks is only in your fantasy it’s just quack politics. I suppose in your books everyone should pay the same tax whether they earn a Million per annum or 10,000. Otherwise there is a difference and that must be communism eh ? Al Gore is doing the same as all politicians, I bet he does not even pay tax on his millions but then again I suppose you would support that, otherwise it’s redistribution of wealth or whatever.
Garethman,
I’ll ignore your insult and reply that there is not 100% Communism [nor 100% capitalism] anywhere, not in Russia, Cuba, or North Korea. The issue is whether a country is heading more in one direction than the other. Under Obama, the U.S. has been heading in the direction of Communism. That will be remedied next month, when the adults take charge over here.
I agree with you about Gore, he is a self-serving opportunist. President George W. Bush was far more environmentally responsible than Al Gore. [I am not a Bush apologist. He was almost as financially irresponsible as Obama.]
And yes, I support some sort of flat tax, with a basic tax exemption of [e.g.] the first $30,000 of earnings. No loopholes, or at least very few, such as a mortgage deduction and medical expense deduction.
Finally, I support the elimination of the Department of Energy [which has not produced one barrel of oil in 30+ years], the elimination of the Department of Education [a total failure], the elimination of the Department of Commerce [States can handle commerce], the elimination of the Department of Labor [ditto], the elimination of the Department of Homeland Security [staffed with criminals from top to bottom], and the elimination of the EPA and GISS — for starters.
Those make-work bureaucracies always grow, and they soon become interested only in their primary, unstated mission: their own continued expansion and political power. To hell with them. We would do perfectly fine without them, and the immense drain on our financial resources would be plugged.
Garethman and D Böehm:
I am taking the (probably stupid) risk of inserting a comment into your debate in the (probably forlorn) hope of resolving your conflict.
In the present day the greatest risk is not from the right or from left but is from totalitarians of every political colour. This is why politicians of both right and left extremes are pushing AGW: the AGW-scare is a useful tool to advance the totalitarianism which they desire.
Unjustifiable bureaucracies are one of the methods for operating totalitarianism. At the extreme left are communists and at the extreme right are fascists who are all totalitarians who operate systems where those in control take from everybody else. The bureaucracies do the taking on behalf of those who run the system.
Totalitarians kill people. They kill lots of people. When we are considering the AGW-scare then arguing about right and left is ‘taking your eye off the ball’: people of good conscience need to oppose totalitarianism and only avoiding it from one end of the political spectrum gives totalitarians at the other end a free-run to take over.
Richard
Gareth has the problem all communists have: his communism doesn’t work. And everyone finds out.
Little Chris Horner,
sat in his corner,
stirring his pot of stew.
Along came Al Gore,
sat down beside him,
So Chris leant over and squashed him.
(Any semblance to Little Miss Tuffet is purely incidental, as is the lack of rhyme 🙂
Steamboat Jack, thanks for a far more expansive post than mine… hopefully someone learned something.
More than 10 years out, and I’m in absolute amazement at just how badly 9/11 has been misrepresented and used politically. I have no tolerance for deliberate misinformation, like the “loose change” morons, and the thought that it had anything to do with Bush is particularly annoying. But I have to admit, any implication that it wouldn’t have happened if Gore was President pops my cork.
I knew people that worked in those buildings. I lost a childhood friend that day. I knew several people involved with the initial search and cleanup. I have NO tolerance for ANYONE who wants to minimize it or make it political (without knowing the facts), or who thinks there is humor or cheap political points to be found there.
It was a cowardly, unannounced sneak attack during peacetime, just like December 7, 1941. I don’t hear a lot of people mocking the US or President Roosevelt for that day. We all know what happened after Pearl Harbor, and the response after 9/11 was EXTREMELY measured and focused.
Gore was somewhat of a failure as VP… and his subsequent opportunism and ridiculous left-targeted posturing SHOULD show people that the world dodged a bullet on November 7, 2000.
Sean on 14 October – I totally agree! CodeTech my sympathies. As far as 9/11 is concerned it was a tragic affair, I was at Uni at the time, and was surprised meeting my lecturer who told me that lectures were cancelled because of it. A professor of politics mentioned then it was not Saddam Hussein, he wasn’t that stupid, but was Bin Laden. I remember sitting watching the TV live and crying. We knew this would not go well and it would threaten world peace (if it is ever present?) and would be revenged. Unlike pearl harbor it was a total surprise, the Brits let the Americans know the Japanese fleet was on its way. But I don’t blame it on the American politicians not withstanding one query, why stand down NORAD and the fighters? The excuse was they could not get there in time? There was plenty of time, and jet fighters are very fast. Air traffic control was worried something was amiss, and communications went astray. Rather than a conspiracy I feel incompetence was the deciding factor. Of course Mike’s 9/11 movie didn’t help and colored people’s opinions.
We Told You So says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Gareth has the problem all communists have: his communism doesn’t work. And everyone finds out.
Garethman ( who is honest enough not to use aliases) During this debate I have flagged up numerous references showing that the idea of Obama as a communist is complete nonsense. Those who claim he is have shown nothing but insults. If this is how they would debate climate science I see why they are held in contempt. By the way I am not a communist and never have been, I regard it as a fundamentally flawed system, thats because I understand it, I work closely with elected politicians on both the right and left, I don’t just fling the word around as an insult. The thing that concerns me personally is how many misguided people who believe that Romney is a Fascist or Obama is a Communist will vote on the basis of those flawed ideas. It a sign that democracy is breaking down when large sections of the population vote on the basis of fantasy instead of reality. I leave you with a quote:
“It is reported that Obama cringed in horror at the absurd notion that he is a wait-in-the wings Marxist. But tossing the damaging political label at him is more than just a last desperate gasp effort by the GOP attack hounds to get an edge on Obama. It taps into the deeply held belief–and even fear–that Obama can and will actually mug the rich and by extension those who fantasize about being rich. The question, “Is Obama a Socialist” is silly and revolting. Yet, to even ask it creates just enough doubt. And that suits the GOP’
Thanks Richard for your insightful post.
D Böehm says:
October 14, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Garethman,
I’ll ignore your insult and reply that there is not 100% Communism [nor 100% capitalism] anywhere, not in Russia, Cuba, or North Korea. The issue is whether a country is heading more in one direction than the other. Under Obama, the U.S. has been heading in the direction of Communism. That will be remedied next month, when the adults take charge over here.
I agree with you about Gore, he is a self-serving opportunist. President George W. Bush was far more environmentally responsible than Al Gore. [I am not a Bush apologist. He was almost as financially irresponsible as Obama.]
And yes, I support some sort of flat tax, with a basic tax exemption of [e.g.] the first $30,000 of earnings. No loopholes, or at least very few, such as a mortgage deduction and medical expense deduction.
Finally, I support the elimination of the Department of Energy [which has not produced one barrel of oil in 30+ years], the elimination of the Department of Education [a total failure], the elimination of the Department of Commerce [States can handle commerce], the elimination of the Department of Labor [ditto], the elimination of the Department of Homeland Security [staffed with criminals from top to bottom], and the elimination of the EPA and GISS — for starters.
Those make-work bureaucracies always grow, and they soon become interested only in their primary, unstated mission: their own continued expansion and political power. To hell with them. We would do perfectly fine without them, and the immense drain on our financial resources would be plugged.
Garethman says:
You make some interesting points, some I would agree with, some not. But my point is that those issues do not make one side a fascist or the other side a communist. You still live in a democracy and have a right to express and campaign for those ideas. As Richard has pointed out, under totalitarian regimes from the left or right that is not allowed. As a result calling Obama a communist is just plain wrong from an objective perspective and undermines the horrendous experiences of those subject to the real thing. By the way I don’t recall insulting you any worse than I have been insulted in this debate!
21 STEPS OF GLOBAL DISSENT – or how I learned to stop worrying and love the fake global crisis.
1. There have been dissidents since history was recorded. Many have written unhappy words.
2. Dissidents invent one topic after another to express unhappiness. As the world communication system goes faster and broader, the fake issues become more horrendous.
3. The United Nations was formed partly to control dissidents.
4. The most recent major issue, global warming, replaced nuclear power, which replaced a global cancer scare from man-made chemicals, which replaced a global cooling scare.
5. Some smart rich people get on the bandwagon of the newest emerging issue. Some prime it, some sub-prime it.
6. If they pick it correctly, they invest heavily in the front end, e.g. in windmill fabrication companies as people start to talk about alternative energy.
7. As the public realises the new topic is growing, these rich smarts sell off at or near the peak of the movement, since the public is conditioned to join in ‘for the cause’ and value for money becomes a secondary consideration for individuals.
8. Communities like the European Union join in, sometimes in covert league with the rich smarts.
9. Countries join in and make laws supporting the thrust of the UN thinking. They spend much money buying new technology and ideas and economic models from the early smarts, or from the companies who bought from the early smarts.
10. The equipment and its warranties fails to meet economic performance expectations. Costs rise, taxes are increased.
11. A trading scheme is set up to resemble a market, so that those still holding an embarrassment of useless riches can unload them on the poor and gullible.
12. The commodity price on the scheme falls and falls until markets fail. The poorer countries end up with the semi-useless hardware and responsibility.
13. Some Governments attempt to keep prices and investor interest afloat, by making laws requiring levels of participation and outlawing some alternatives.
14. The GDP per person of counties starts to fall because more people are performing less useful work, unless the falling GDP is offset by the emergence of a happy new industry or product.
15. Voters lose interest in the initial alarmism and demand higher priority for the provision of other Government services.
16. The edifice crumbles slowly, maybe not completely.
17. Meanwhile, a band of dissidents with rich smarts is contriving the next catastrophe and starting to invest in its ‘remediation’ by planning a quick in-out on the rising price.
18. There are likely to be cartels like jackals in the background, feasting on the free leftovers.
19. Remote, isolated populations have led a comparatively simpler life for many decades.
20. Dangerous creatures like snakes tend to bite when poked with a stick. If you walk away you are safer.
21. Happiness rewards those who walk away, who continue to laugh at adversity and who continue with scepticism to deride those who sleep poorly at night.
“the Bush family fortunes were founded on support for the German Nazi party in the 30s, Gore is not unusual , at the end of the day he is an all American boy and that means adherence to the all American dream of making fortunes regardless of ethics.”
You may as well quit phoning folks. We have our winner for most bigoted comment of the day and here I’m thinking of bigot in the traditional sense of the word; obstinate and misinformed.
I am most grateful Rick, I could never have done without the help of you and your friends.