Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘Obama Administration’

Another Obama Administration “green” investment goes bankrupt.

Posted by Dana Pico on 2012/01/26

 

From Ed Morrissey:

Another green-tech stimulus recipient files for bankruptcy

posted at 3:40 pm on January 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In last year’s State of the Union speech, Barack Obama hailed the great investment he made with taxpayer dollars in the manufacturer of advanced solar panels, only to have Solyndra go down the tubes — taking more than a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money with it.  In this year’s SOTU speech, Obama bragged about having sunk money into “partnership” with the private sector to become a world leader in car-battery sector.  Right on time, that “partner” filed for bankruptcy, too:

An Indiana-based energy storage company that received a $118.5 million stimulus-law grant from the Energy Department filed for bankruptcy Thursday.

Ener1 is asking a federal bankruptcy court in New York to approve a plan to restructure the company’s debt and infuse $81 million in equity funding. …

The Energy Department, in 2009, approved a $118.5 million stimulus-law grant for EnerDel, a subsidiary of the company that develops lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles. The grant was part of a broader program aimed at promoting the development of electric-vehicle battery technology.

President Obama touted the program in his State of the Union address this year.

“In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries,” he said.

We saw this coming last October, when CBS first reported on Ener1′s shaky financial position.  At that time, the company had spent $53 million of the grant and had pledged to create 1700 jobs from it in total.  When the story got reported, Ener1 traded at 11 cents a share, down from its December 2008 peak of $9.40 and the $3 per share price when the Department of Energy decided to invest in a company that had lost two-thirds of its value.  The share price was five cents by the beginning of this month, and is now at two cents a share.

Don’t forget, too, that the $53 million spent by October created jobs … 33 of them.

Perhaps green-tech stimulus recipients should call on Obama to refrain from giving them SOTU shout-outs.

And what does the Obama Administration say? Jen Stutsman, spokesman for the Energy Department, said:

The Department of Energy’s grant to EnerDel is supporting a cutting-edge battery manufacturing plant that is producing batteries in America that are being sold across the country and around the world. This grant is part of the department’s efforts to commercialize promising vehicle technologies that will help America to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and ensure U.S. companies can compete in the global auto industry. While it’s unfortunate that Ener1, the parent company, has entered a restructuring process, the new infusion of $80 million in private capital demonstrates that the technology has merit. As the company has said, the restructuring is not expected to impact EnerDel’s operations and they do not expect to reduce employment at the site.

NASDAQ delisted Ener1′s stock (HEVV) last October:

Earlier this week, Ener1 was notified by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC that it has not complied with the exchange’s filing requirement for continued inclusion in Listing Rules 5250(c)(1). The rule requires the timely filing of period financial reports with the SEC. The company failed to file its form 10-Q for the three-month period ended June 30, 2011, on a timely basis, violating the rules set by NASDAQ.

And there’s even more:

According to the SEC filing, Ener1 failed to meet an Oct. 17 deadline to file a quarterly report for the period ended June 30. In addition, the company said NASDAQ determined that Ener1 violated shareholder approval requirements in amending a line of credit.

Ener1 already was in danger of losing its NASDAQ listing because its stock price has not met the $1-per-share minimum price requirement to trade on the exchange since July. NASDAQ warned the company in September that it was not meeting listing requirements.

Ener1’s shares tumbled from more than $4 a share in January, when Vice President Joe Biden visited EnerDel’s Greenfield battery plant, to less than a dollar in a matter of months. Shares traded at 20 cents each Wednesday morning, down 6 cents since Tuesday’s close.

The company has experienced a series of setbacks this year. Most recently, several lawsuits have been filed, claiming the company misled investors about its financial condition.

Investors began filing the suits in August, days after Ener1 said it would restate earnings for 2010 and for the first quarter of this year. Ener1’s 2010 financial loss of $69 million eventually was restated to a loss of $165 million.

And, to top it all off, the company has even applied for $290 million in federal loan guarantees.

So, what do we have? A company that the Obama Administration thought should get a grant, because they were in an approved kind of business, that failed to make legally required filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and which allegedly misled its shareholders about its financial condition. How is it that the regulation-and-oversight-happy Obama Administration could give Ener1 a $118.5 million grant yet somehow fail to monitor what was going on with the company?1

EnerDel develops lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles, something the Obama Administration really, really likes. But, as THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL has reported previously, General Motors’ Chevrolet Volt has not been selling very well, and in the United Kingdom there are actually more public electric car charging stations than there are electric cars on the road. The Obama Administration, for political reasons, invested over a hundred million in taxpayer dollars in a company which couldn’t pay its bills, wouldn’t meet its legal requirements, and possibly misled investors, because it was in the business of developing batteries for cars that nobody wants to buy.

This is the kind of thing that happens when the government gets involved in picking winners and losers, based on what kind of business proposals the companies can make: some are going to turn out OK, and others are going to turn out bad. And that’s why the government shouldn’t be involved in this kind of thing at all: if Ener1 had been a good business investment, it shouldn’t have needed the $118.5 million grant, but would have attracted that kind of investment from the private sector.

________________________________

Posted in economics | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Obama Administration Attacks Church At SCOTUS

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/10/12

The Obama Administration has decided it can tell a Protestant Church which doctrine it is allowed to enforce. The case is now before the US Supreme Court. Tina Korbe has the background information.

In the early 2000s, Cheryl Perich was a “called teacher” or “commissioned minister” at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich. As such, she taught religious classes, led students in prayer and incorporated religious teachings into secular subjects like math, science, social studies and art.

But in 2004, she was diagnosed with narcolepsy and became unable to teach the fall semester that year. When she failed to return to school in January 2005, the school hired a replacement teacher. The school wanted to “peacefully release” Perich from her “call,” but Perich demanded she be reinstated — and threatened to sue the school if she wasn’t. It was that threat of a lawsuit — not Perich’s narcolepsy — that led the congregation to “rescind her call” (i.e. fire her). Apparently, it’s against church teaching to take an internal dispute of that sort to the secular courts.

Indeed it is against Lutheran Doctrine to sue the Church in secular courts. Flyfisher provided Bible reference material backing up the Doctrine in the comment section.

1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Lawsuits Among Believers

1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

Matthew 18:15-17

A Brother Who Sins Against You

15 “If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

So the Lutheran Church is doing something extraordinary and unusual as far as the Obama Administration is concerned: basing its no-lawsuit doctrine on the Bible — something Jeremiah Wright never deigned to do. But even if the Church’s doctrine is not Bible-based — as Jeremiah Wright’s is not — the Supreme Law of the Land (for you Liberals reading this, that would be the US Constitution and not the Obama Administration) is very clear on this point.

First Amendment (first part)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]

That means the Church has the right to govern itself by its own doctrine and the US Government has no jurisdiction. Period. If you don’t like the Church doctrine, you’re free to find another Church or abstain from Church altogether. The government does not have the right to dictate to the Church which doctrine it can mandate and which doctrine it cannot.

Thomas Peters at CatholicVote.org links to the Washington Examiner for some of the details of the oral hearings. As Mr Peters rightly says, the Obama Administration’s arguments and attempts at destroying religious freedom are simply breathtaking.

The justices then rejected the argument of Leondra Kruger, Obama’s lawyer for the EEOC, who argued that there’s no ministerial exception in the Constitution, only the same rights that secular organizations possess to choose their own affiliations.

At this, Scalia exploded. “That’s extraordinary! There, black on white in the text of the Constitution, are special protections for religion. And you say it makes no difference?”

Kagan agreed with Scalia’s rejection of the argument that the First Amendment doesn’t protect churches from government ordering who they should hire as pastor or priest.

Justice Samuel Alito (a Catholic) made a critical point, asking if a Catholic priest married and the church removed him from ministry for violating Catholic doctrine, could the EEOC order him reinstated.

When Kruger answered no, Alito replied that EEOC was making a judgment that certain teachings — such as the Catholic belief that priests must be celibate — are more important than the Lutheran doctrine that ministers cannot sue the church.

Chief Justice John Roberts (also Catholic) agreed, saying, “You’re making a judgment about how important a particular religious belief is to a church.” Government cannot make such theological judgments.

Where, praytell, are all the Constitutional Scholars in the Obama Administration? Oh, right. Better question: Are there any “Constitutional Scholars” in the Obama Administration, including the Chief Executive Officer of the Obama Administration, who have actually, you know, READ the US Constituion? Another question: Is there any part of the US Constitution the Obama Administration is not willing to violate?

This is beyond the point of “old and wearisome” at this stage of the game.

Posted in Character, Christianity, Constitution, Elections, Law, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, Philosophy, politics, Religion, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 216 other followers

%d bloggers like this: