Is there anything that remotely comes close to Obama’s stimulus that doesn’t turn to crap?
Fisker’s Big Fundraiser is Going Out of Business
The venture finance operation that raised money for crony capitalist investors Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, and their green tech firms like electric car company Fisker Automotive ($193 million paid in stimulus loan guarantees) and fuel cell manufacturer Bloom Energy, is shutting down, according to a Fortune report.
Advanced Equities, Inc. …… Crain’s Chicago Business confirmed that AEI was shutting down its broker-dealer business following its regulatory troubles, which “made it difficult to run the business.”
“The problem with this picture is that in vaulting (Advanced Equities) to its high perch in the VC world, Daubenspeck and Badger have left a wake of aggrieved customers, furious former employees, lawsuits and more than their share of busted startups,” Forbes reported. “At least 18 former clients have filed arbitration complaints accusing the firm of wrongdoing. Separately, six brokers have alleged that AE stiffed them for millions of dollars.”
Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins was also in dealings with with Badger and Daubenspeck.
Kleiner’s best-known partner is former Vice President Al Gore, who is also a supporter of Fisker and purchased one of its first Karma models.
Another linchpin between Kleiner, Bloom and Fisker is John Doerr, who serves on President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Doerr and his Kleiner Perkins colleagues have donated well over $2.6 million to candidates and political action committees, favoring Democrats.
Somehow amidst these dubious actors and Obama cronies the analysts at the Department of Energy found Fisker worthy of a $529-million stimulus loan guarantee. Ever since the car company has experienced an almost comical (it would be hilarious, if taxpayer money wasn’t at stake) series of blunders, including: two recalls; layoffs; vehicle fires; an unfulfilled promise to manufacture cars at a former General Motors plant in Delaware; state taxpayers paying the utility bills for that empty plant; and the aforementioned investor lawsuit and investigation of Advanced Equities, Fisker’s primary fundraiser. The crowning blow was Consumer Reports’ determination in September that the Fisker Karma is the worst luxury sedan on the U.S. market.
Advanced Equities is now shutting down, and DOE cut off Fisker’s loan after paying out $193 million due to its shortcomings, yet President Obama has promised more government money for renewable schemes in his second term.
Interesting list of beneficiaries of our tax money. Everything that man touches turns to sheite! Can we just say no this time around and work on something useful?
h/t Mike
suyts space 
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Mr Gores; Karma
>>
That which I say is gold . . . IS GOLD.
<<
It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Jim
In this case “is” means a pile of excrement.
Is that Mr Obama muckin out the stalls ? 🙂
My dream scenario: A new America will rise from the Obama ashes, with separation of ‘economy & state’ becoming an understood and accepted ideal in our Constitution as separation of ‘church & state’ is.
There’s nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. That was from a Supreme Court ruling–a bogus ruling I might add.
Jim
Jim, ?
The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Together with the Free Exercise Clause (“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), these two clauses make up what are called the “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.[1]
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the “separation” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferential” or “accommodation” interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
You missed the religious test exclusion in Article VI. Nothing in the First Amendment disallows the government from giving God a nod. Thus we can have “In God We Trust” on our money and “one nation under God” in the pledge.
Jim
God, yes, not one church preference over another. As government should not give one business preference over another.
But the Supreme Court ruling means not even God is allowed. You may expect “In God We Trust” to disappear from our money soon.
Jim
Yes, I agree. That’s ridiculous, and will be sad day should it occur. The idea was not eliminate God, but to insure Government could not favor one American’s way of worship over another’s.
Yes. Not the exact words, but the intention is certainly obvious.
You’ve heard the words: “separation of church and state” so often, that the intention is colored through that lens. Those words may appear in Jefferson’s writing, but the Court ruling was in 1947, Everson v. Board of Education.
The intention is not that obvious.
Jim
What’s your interpretation of the 1st Amend.? Surely, not that government should favor one religion.
No, that would clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But notice, it says “Congress shall not,” not government.
Jim
Sorry, not following you on that one. There must be a difference that you’re inferring, between gov. and congress, that I should be seeing, but I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed. You mean that maybe ‘government’ has expanded beyond ‘Congress’, and that expansion has allowed it to overstep it’s bounds toward eliminating God?
Congress is a branch of government. But at this point it doesn’t matter. The Constitution isn’t being followed any more, so why worry about it.
I probably should have kept my keyboard to myself.
Jim
I agree. And that’s why I worry about it. 🙂
And don’t apologize for expressing your opinion. We’ve got to fight that one, also.
I might add, that the concept of separation of church and state was not applied to states until the 1947 ruling.
Jim
BBC scandal
http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/11/the-real-bbc-scandal.html
BBC replies
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=615
I think I see the distinction. Anyone in government can refer to the Devine in general, thus, “In God we trust” can be on our currency. Which should be no different then the pledge of alligence, a generic reference to the Divine. During the late 1700s there was no question of the prominent Christian heritage of most of the US, but the founding Father’s clearly wanted no wars over religion, period, be it Cathloic vs Protestant, or even any other religion. Freedom was to be extolled, and power, in any group form, was to be severely limited. Biblical relief scenes at certain National Sites were fine, as long as there was no law regarding the establishment of a religion. Such simple common sense is, alas, lost to the mental illness of todays world.
I agree with everything you said. The 1947 ruling prohibits states from doing their own thing. The Constitution was never meant to prohibit state religions–only a national one. Somehow, it now means God is no longer part of the US scene–state, federal or local.
Having a Christmas tree on government property is punishable by . . . well it’s now wrong. I grew up singing Christmas carols in school. That’s no longer allowed.
Jim
I think we are close, but for the “state religions”. Goverment power, infused with religion, is highly destructive, usually to the individual, to the state, and to the religion. It is reasonable to argue that the worst thing for the Catholic faith was when it became the state religion of Rome.
I really think that the original intent was to limit any legal goverment laws regarding the favoring of one religion over another. Any state can cultually honor the contributions of a regional or world religious figure they may admire, but I disagree with any shotgun wedding laws, (all laws are shotgun enforced) favoring one man’s religion over another. Addtionally your perscription for state lee way here allows Sharia law inspired enclaves to propogate. Laws of limiting power must be strictly enforced, in my view.
>>
David says:
November 16, 2012 at 1:24 am
Addtionally your perscription for state lee way here allows Sharia law inspired enclaves to propogate.
<<
There are Sharia law inspired enclaves now. I’m not sure how they propagate.
Jim
Also, “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
Jim
I just do not see how a “state religion” written into law, is not against the principles of the establishment clause, or how it helps any religion. “The official religion of such and such state is… ” appears just plain anti-american. Religion is a free will choice, as intregal to liberty as anything. A Christmas tree in a public park is not a law, simply a cultural recognition of a contribution to society. And sadly but yes, Muslims are ever pushing for their religious “rights” to the exclusion of founding US principles. Sharia, in word and deed, is anti American. They are doing this now by ever larger majority numbers in some communities. God forbid they purposefully influx a small state to the point of having Islam as that states religion.
Yes.
And again, exactly what the wording in the Constitution was meant to prevent. Even if Connecticut becomes a state of 10 million Muslims, & 1 Christian, the state cannot favor those 10 million. That Christian can still build a church.
But, yes, the sworn & supposed defenders of the Constitution appear to be more interested in rendering it invalid.
The left swears it is all a big VRWC. But they won the election, so most of the rich must agree with them! And there is no law that says they cannot throw their money onto these pyres of stupidity. So I wonder why they are not investing in the Solyndras? Seems they do not have the courage of their convictions.
The Stock Market has almost a perfect streak of downs since Obama was elected. The MSM tried to blame it on Europe. But a close analyses shows the wealthy are moving their money over seas and out of the market (as am I). Ideals are great. But when they deny reality, they are merely childish wishes.
‘Ideals are great. But when they deny reality, they are merely childish wishes.’
Nailed it.
And, I would add: Ideals are great when you’re willing to personally bear the burden of responsibility for your strong personal belief in them. Having Ideals is easy when you can spread the burden of them onto government, who then forces it upon others, who may not share the same beliefs as you.
Relieving one’s self of that burden is pretty much the foundation of all Liberal policy.