Home / Culture and Society / Green Corruption: The Plot Thickens

Green Corruption: The Plot Thickens

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone


Al Gore and John Doerr’s –– the “climate duo,” whose combined “carbon footprint” is larger than my entire city –– friendship dates as far back as the 90’s. Since being converted to “global warming” by Gore in 2005 with “a convenient hype,” Doerr has become a “green evangelist,” with his climate crisis message, “I’m really scared, I don’t think we’re gonna make it.” At the same time Doerr continually markets energy as “the mother of all markets” –– $6 trillion a year worldwide.

As written by Troxler and Brown in their book Killing Wealth, Freeing Wealth, around 2005 Kleiner Perkins had initially invested $100 million into “green” and announced publicly that they would “advocate for policies that reduce the climate crisis and increase energy innovation.” Yet, “within hours of Obama’s victory –– a candidate that both Gore and Doerr had strenuously campaigned for, including financial donations  –– Kleiner Perkins had upped their investment in forty-eight clean-energy-technology companies to the tune of nearly $2 billion.”

In 2004 Gore started a company with CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management David Blood –– Generation Investment Management (GIM), a “green” and “global warming” investment company valued at $2.5 billion. GIM partners include two other Goldman bigwigs, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, with speculation that Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson is involved somehow, yet I am unable to confirm.


In 2007, GIM and Kleiner Perkins created “an International Alliance to accelerate global climate solutions,” and about that time, Gore became a partner of Kleiner Perkins and Doerr joined the GIM advisory board. More compelling, both GIM and Goldman Sachs are two of the largest investors in the cap-and-trade carbon-trading platform that Obama helped get funded back in 2000 and 2001 via the Joyce Foundation. That company is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which was launched in 2003 and whose founder and CEO Richard Sandor –– the “Godfather of Carbon Trading,” another major player in the Climate Scam –– estimates that the worldwide carbon market could be “a $10 trillion a year market.”

If you’ve followed any of Glenn Beck’s Crime Inc. series, conservative blogs, or caught Deborah Corey Barnes’ 2007 article at HumanEvents.com –– The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade –– you’re probably aware that during two of the eight years (1994 to 2002) that Obama sat on the board of The Joyce Foundation (the Chicago-based organization, who is a major donor to radical environmentalist and conservation groups, including Joel Rogers’ Emerald Cities Collaborative and progressive movements like Center for American Progress), then Senator Obama voted in favor of the nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching CCX. Also, prior to joining the Obama administration as Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President, Valerie Jarrett served as a director of The Joyce Foundation. During the time funding was approved, Paula DiPerna, the Joyce Foundation’s president became the Executive Vice President for CCX. 

Furthermore, during Senator Obama’s April 2006 “Energy Independence” speech, he even gave CCX a “shout out” –– “Right here in Chicago, the Chicago Climate Exchange is already running a legally binding greenhouse gas trading system,” announces the Organizing for America website, the successor organization to Obama for America. Interestingly, in October 2006, then Chicago Governor Rod Blagojevich, in his Executive Order on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, it states, “It is the intent for the State of Illinois to join Chicago Climate Exchange,” and sure enough the State of Illinois is a CCX member.

Most are aware that GIM purchased a ten percent stake in CCX and became the company’s fifth largest co-owner and in 2006 Goldman Sachs also purchased a ten percent share of CCX for $23 million –– marking Goldman and GIM as the largest investors in the Chicago Climate Exchange. However, what is not known is that Sandor is well connected and even had a hand in shaping the Waxman cap-and-trade bill –– as reported by Bloomberg News in June of 2009, which also confirmed his ties to Obama. Sandor stated, “Obama was on the foundation [Joyce Foundation] that gave us the grant.” “We know him well.”

In addition, in a May 14, 2009 press release by ResourceInvestor.com, Sandor was named as part of a new panel called the Energy & Environmental Markets Advisory Committee (EEMAC), of which Bart Chilton Commissioner of the Commodity Future Trading Commission (CFTC), is also the chair. “This is a distinguished group that will help the agency as we prepare for what could be the most important commodity market ever,” Chilton said. “I know it is sort of rare for government to do a lot of work before a new law is even passed, but carbon markets are too important for us not to get right,” Chilton added. 

It must be a Chicago thing, but the Climate Scam is much bigger.  


CCX board includes a very controversial figure –– Maurice Strong, who has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology” and Strong is another “global warming guru,” playing “a unique and critical role in globalizing the environmental movement.” According to Canada Free Press, Strong was part of a scandal with Al Gore back in the 90’s and has been known to be working on “anti-American schemes with George Soros as far back as 2006.” Canada Free Press pronounces, “All that President Barack Obama is doing to transform America and the Free World over to One World Government begins and ends with one Maurice Strong. Soros is merely the financier.”

Speaking of George Soros, Troxler and Brown open Killing Wealth, Freeing Wealth, heralding Soros “the first of the Killionaires, but not the last” –– highlighting his trail of destruction. Killionaires, the authors state, “Are focused on killing off the wealth of millions to increase their own personal wealth.” And in Soros own words, “I am basically there to make money.  I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.”

According to DiscoverTheNetworks.org, Soros through his foundation Open Society Institute (OSI), has dispensed billions of dollars to a multitude of left-wing organizations, including bankrolling, as mentioned earlier, the Center for American Progress as well as Moveon.org –– the web-based political network that uses its fundraising clout to push the Democratic Party to the left. Apparently, Soros “is one of the most powerful men on earth” and “has long, deep and shady ties to the Democratic Party,” more specifically, Hillary Clinton, yet Soros jumped into the political ring with Barack Obama as early as 2004.

But we’ll “move on” because more relevant to the Climate Scam is an organization that Soros happens to be one of the largest donors –– the Tides Center/Foundation, “with a 30-year history in progressive social change work.” The Tides Center is a large and frequent recipient of Joyce Foundation grants, who, as noted earlier, funds a lot of “green,” lists the Apollo Alliance in their “Project Directory” and recently gave a $175,000 grant to the Tides Center for the “work” of the Apollo Alliance.  A tangled financial web is woven in the fabric of the green movement and there’s more…


Goldman Sachs is like a parasite, inhabiting, surviving and thriving at the expense of its host –– our political structure, infecting our capitalistic system turning it into a distasteful, dysfunctional, and destructive machine. Goldmanites are also “Banksters” operating within this Climate Scam. In fact, Matt Taibbi in his July 2009 Rolling Stone Magazine article –– The Great American Bubble Machine –– warns that Goldman Sachs is “helping create the next bubble, ‘global warming.’” Other economic analysts label it “alternative energy,” yet most predict, and as presented in Troxler and Brown’s book, Killing Wealth, Freeing Wealth –– it will be the biggest financial bubble in U.S. history.

Additionally, Taibbi’s Rolling Stone Magazine piece and video, exposes Goldman Sachs’ “long-standing and very deep ties to the Democratic Party,” and their “long history of putting their former employees in Democratic administrations.” Sure enough, Goldman Sachs was one of Obama’s leading campaign donors in the amount of $994,795, and they currently occupy high-level important positions in the Obama White House.

Taibbi also reveals that Goldman Sachs “ramped up its push for cap-and-trade” back in 2008 “when their firm spent $3.5 million to lobby for climate issues, pointing out that one of the lobbyists at that time was Mark Patterson, who now serves as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s chief of staff.” Goldmanites also made early “green investments,” including wind power, renewable diesel, and partnered with BP Solar” –– BP another major contributor to the Obama campaign, but right now they are in “deep water” with the White House. Goldman Sachs “has invested over $2 billion in alternative energy projects in the US, Europe and Asia” –– a “green portfolio” along with Kleiner Perkins, that should be thoroughly investigated, but we’ll take a brief glance. 


As the Climate Scam turns, one of the early investments reported by Taibbi is Horizon Wind Energy –– still on the Goldman Sachs Environmental Markets portfolio, but owned by Portuguese EDP Renewables –– won a $229.8 million grant from the Obama Green Stimulus package, as reported by GreenTechnology.Daily.com in December 2009, pointing out that it was one of the “top grant recipients.” The article also notes, “European companies have scooped up the majority of U.S. stimulus money set aside for wind power projects.”

Nordic Windpower, funded by Goldman Sachs and Khosla Ventures (and others) –– Vinod Khosla, an affiliated partner of Kleiner Perkins  –– in July 2009 announced that it had “received a conditional commitment for a $16 million loan guarantee offer from the US Department of Energy (DOE), supported through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

U.S. Geothermal Inc. –– an Idaho-based geothermal energy developer with three main projects in the works (San Emidio in Nevada, Raft River in Idaho, and Neal Hot Springs in Oregon) with plans for more –– are a Goldman Sachs investment and they are a 5.98% shareholder in the company. 

Back in October 2009, the San Emidio Project, a 3.6 megawatts power plant in Nevada was awarded $3.77 million in federal stimulus money.  Also, in February 2010 it was declared that “work has begun” on USG’s Raft River Project –– a $10 million Enhanced Geothermal System grant program funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.  Lastly, June 2010, USG announced that it “was offered a conditional commitment for a $102.2-million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy,” slated to build a 22-megawatt power plant in the eastern Oregon desert –– the Neal Hot Springs Project. The Associated Press reported that “once it [the Neal Hot Springs Project] is done (around 2012), the company is counting on a separate, $34 million federal tax rebate” –– money that’s part of the 2009 federal stimulus act meant to help spur investment in renewable energy, which will help pay down the federal loan as well as pay off some private investors.”


Obviously, these uber-rich individuals along with crooked politicians are running the “green show.” With thier “planet saving venture,” they have hijacked our environment for profit, using deception and corruption on many fronts, making this a scam. They are fueled by greed and power as they engineer the largest financial bubble in U.S. history, while American taxpayers foot the bill, ultimately to suffer the dire consequences, unless of course, Captain Planet arrives. On the other hand, the left-wing radical agenda that is attached to the green movement is complex and even much more difficult to track then the billions of taxpayer dollars going to “favored” green companies, yet it is just as troubling and I will attempt to make sense out of it next.

Powered by

About Christine Lakatos

  • Sandy Fit

    The glut of articles that came out this week about how GM & Chrysler had “Fixed” the ATVM loan for themselves seems to have put too much scrutiny on GM and further review would have tracked back to the dirty-secrets of who they bribed in Washington to get a private slush fund just for themselves at taxpayer and competitor expense. Nissan caught them and so they got some of the money too, making it Slush money AND Hush Money. No company would walk away from $14B that they are a shoe-in for unless they realized that deeper investigations would bring them to their knees and link all of the payoffs and “special dinners” together. Rattner, the guy at the White House who ran the car money is now facing criminal charges. The DOE staff that worked on it have been fired or “forcibly migrated” and all are under investigation by the Republicans who hated the Detroit deals. Federal and state law enforcement have had these guys under investigation for awhile. The big crime is all coming apart at the seams. You-know-what rolls downhill and Rattner started the heap unraveling.


    The Department of Energy’s $25b Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan program was very nearly used as a slush fund to keep GM and Chrysler afloat during the dangerous days leading up to the federal auto bailout. Though President Bush’s decision to use TARP to rescue America’s failing automakers took away the need to tap the so-called “retooling loan” program to fund America’s auto bailout, that decision also contributed to a long delay in the allocation of the ATVM loans. Because the loans require applicants prove “financial viability,” GM and Chrysler’s requests (which account for $17.4b out of the remaining pool of $16.7b in non-allocated loans) have been on hold, and with them, every other automaker still seeking approval for its requests. And now, with no word from the DOE on the loan program since last April, congress is agitating for the DOE to make with the loans already. Senator Diane Feinstein captures the frustration in a letter published by the Detroit News

    “On multiple occasions, the department has missed internal deadlines for initial decisions, term negotiations, final decisions and loan closure,” she wrote, saying the department failed to give applicants “a clear timeline.”

    But did the DOE miss deadlines and string automakers along out of negligence, or because it had to wait in order to fulfill the loan program’s mission, namely supporting the bailed-out automakers?

    This question doesn’t have an easy answer: after all, few in the private sector expect rapid action from governmental bureaucracies. The slow allocation of federal loans really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. At the same time, the ATVM program has been in place since 2008, and automakers like Ford, Nissan, Tesla and Fisker have jointly received some $8.3b for programs ranging from Tesla and Fisker’s EV luxury car projects to Nissan’s Leaf and more fuel-efficient versions of Ford’s mass-market models. If the DOE could approve billions for non-bailed-out automakers, surely there is nothing out of the ordinary going on with the DOE’s bureaucracy. Curious minds must, therefore, look to pending requests for an explanation of their delay.

    And those requests tell an interesting story. With $8.3b of the program’s loans already spent, GM’s $14.4b request would, if approved, soak up nearly all remaining funds. In response to both this reality and Fiat’s changes to Chrysler’s efficiency priorities, the Pentastar has reduced its loan request from $8.55b to “around $3b.” Had Chrysler not made its request reduction, the two bailed-out automakers would have accounted for all but $1b of the retooling loan program’s funds. Even with that reduction, Chrysler and GM’s outstanding requests amount to some $700m more than the program has left to give out… and that’s not counting the smaller firms still hoping for a piece of the pie, including ZAP, ALTe, Aptera, Coda and more. Or the fact that

    because the costs have been higher than expected, the Energy Department won’t be able to loan the entire $25 billion, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, said. Auto executives say the agency may only be able to loan another $10 billion.

    The fact that GM and Chrysler are requesting every remaining penny in the ATVM program, combined with delays to the payout of remaining funds sends a fairly unambiguous message: the remaining ATVM money will all be going to GM and Chrysler. Though initial delays to paying out ATVM money to GM and Chrysler were due to the program’s “viability” clause, those concerns were (in theory) circumvented by bailing out those two companies. More recently, GM’s request was “suspended” while it entered the IPO process, an issue that could now be holding up Chrysler’s request. Another concern could be political: with the bailouts still a divisive issue with the American people, the White House may be seeking to delay giving the automakers it owns the rest of the ATVM money as a way of avoiding accusations of political favoritism.

    (Please repost frequently)

  • John,

    I thought so.

    Bank’s stockholders

    : )They could make a profit for all.

  • John Wilson

    #49 – Jeannie:

    Actually, nationalized banks is a pretty good idea. We should have done it a couple years ago when we had a good chance.

    It’s hard to justify stock ownership in banks because they are not like other businesses, having so much leverage everywhere in the business community, and they should profit/lose in the margin between loans and savings, not stock gains.

  • I’m happy that the financial reform bill got passed. It ain’t perfect, but it does establish some tough new rules and a new Consumer Protection agency.

  • Handyguy,

    Marxist? you betcha!:0

    and…what do you think the banks are doing right now? socialism for them and the big corporations, but let the individual need any help and it’s communism!

    : ) I had a brainstorm.

  • Jeannie: Sounds like Marxist-Leninist stuff to me. Has your brain been washed? [Kidding]

  • When people resort to laughable hyperbole [e.g., “dictator,” “tyrant,” “radical”], it’s because they think they can’t win an argument the real way, that is, by reasoning and citing actual, you know, facts.

  • Handyguy,

    I hope you have an opinion about #49.

    : ( you know, I’m not a crackpot.

  • Here is an idea:

    “The government banking system” with all US citizens as the stock holders.

  • Supporting, Obama doesn’t mean that I believe he can control all of the powers that be in this country. We have a long way to go. The banks were just handed more welfare!!!


  • IMO,Ruvy is living in a dictatorship…unable to form his own opinions separate from his country’s.

    For all my president praise..I differ strongly with many of Obama’s ideals. Still, I’m free to go about my day without orders.

  • zingzing

    #44, it’s all a ruse! obama is only trying to make you think he’s far too meek and mild to become a dictator. before you know it, he’ll peel off the mask and out will pop a taliban beard and, from his split skull, a military junta of nigerians and baby-killers and grandma-killers and communists and fascists and cracker-hating soggy cheeses will emerge to take over and destroy america and kill all the jews!!!!


  • John,

    I think he has to be.

  • John Wilson

    Obama is so excessively conciliatory that it is hard to support charges of dictatorship against him.

  • people have a habit of dying a lot younger….yes, Ruvy…people without health care.

  • Ruvy,

    Did you see when Amy Goodman from Democracy__Now! was arrested along with many other citizens exercising their First Amendment rights?

    Supporting, Obama doesn’t mean that I believe he can control all of the powers that be in this country. We have a long way to go.

  • Ruvy

    Christine, I guess I spoke too soon. It was a false dawn of hope. I dared and I was too audacious. But thank you for the high praise anyway. It is much appreciated.

    President Obama is great! The changes he has brought to this country will outlive all of us here today. : )yay!!!! (Hat tip to Dave Nalle)

    Yepp, Jeannie, the changes that Obama brings may outlive many of you. In a dictatorship, people have a habit of dying a lot younger….

  • President Obama is great! The changes he has brought to this country will outlive all of us here today.

    : )yay!!!!

  • The investors knew Obama was going to win…so, they emptied the kitty before the opposition party could take control of the White House, Congress, and Senate.

    money has it’s privileges

  • And all of the comments before Ruvy’s were right on spot.

  • Christine,

    “Just Because that’s what you want to hear, doesn’t mean that Ruvy’s right.”

    : ) I’m still an Obama Mama and don’t you forget it!

  • Christine

    Ruvy, finally someone that gets it. And better said than my 7000 words so far!

  • Ruvy

    It appears there is some hope for you all. The Obama-Mama has awakened from her dewy-eyed fantasies, as has the Realist (if he had any to begin with). The predatory nature of the less than successful Obama régime becomes more evident daily.

    What Christine is documenting in loving and living detail, is how a bunch of individuals are working with the government to make a fortune – while cutting corrupt deals all over the place. This happened under the Bush administration as well, but Obama, having promised something very different – to be the un-Bush, so to speak – is delivering the same smelly garbage. To be totally honest, if you become a dictatorship under the Obama régime, something I fully expect, it means I will lose my itty bitty bully pulpit here. But otherwise, aside from worries that some of you (whom I genuinely like) might be jailed and otherwise abused for your political opinions, it isn’t my worry at all….

  • as apposed to me, who can’t spell!

  • They will never be held accountable, and ya, they were realy smart.

  • Simplify, handyguy and you’ll see the answer…it’s always about the money.

  • I don’t mean to be snide. But the tendency to oversimplify complicated issues is not something I approve of, whether it comes from left or right.

    It’s probably fair to say that good and bad decisions were made in the heat and panic of the moment during the financial meltdown. And that there have been a mixture of good and bad consequences from those decisions.

    But to paint everyone involved as villains is just too easy. I believe that these were and are smart, patriotic people trying their damnedest to do the best thing for the country.

    Doesn’t mean they were 100% right, or that they shouldn’t be held accountable. It’s just that we should make sure we know what we are talking about before spouting off.

    We all resort to caricature too quickly here on the wacky interwebs.

  • handyguy,

    it’s all or very nearly all been paid back, with interest, by now.

    Damn right with interest, but so what? They shed their mistakes and gained huge profits in doing so.

    They still aren’t lending to us. isn’t that why we had to fork over taxpayer money to begin with?

  • 100 billion cut from the industrial military complex!

    Now the rich can have their tax cuts.

  • handyguy,

    I’ve read all of your comments lately, and I think we have some of the same beliefs as to how this country should be run… if only they’d listen : )

    I don’t believe, Hank Paulson was ever really in the driver’s seat. not a slogan

  • That was directed at Handy.

  • Roger,

    Finally, a brilliant statement! lol

    I don’t mean to be contrary, but I tend to subscribe to Jeannie’s view of things

    Why is agreeing with me contrary?

  • I don’t mean to be contrary, but I tend to subscribe to Jeannie’s view of things. No one knows what the effects would be if the bailout didn’t take place, and no economist worth his salt would go on record predicting the future. Otherwise, he’d be a star gazers.

    And so what if the Dow dropped to 1500 hundred or so. It’s a far more realistic level than present inflated prices. So this argument is not resolvable unless from hindsight.

    Meanwhile, plenty of good could be accomplished if the bailout money was diverted to avert the foreclosure crisis and to help out Main Street in general. That’s one reason, as far as I can see, for Mr. Obama’s lack of popularity, and I’d have to agree it’s deserved. The little people were forgotten while the movers and shakers were rescued. Hardly a kind of policy from a president who billed himself as the most progressive ever. The Radical Left is indeed very disenchanted.

    Jeannie displays a great deal of courage in critiquing the bailouts, and I give her much credit for that. She is an ardent Obama supporter.

  • Yes, just ignore everything I wrote as if I have no idea what I’m talking about, and repeat the slogan/mantra until you believe it. You may then rejoin the real world at your convenience.

    Righteous indignation can be a good thing. Paranoid fantasy, not so much.

  • handyguy,

    My description of the bank bailouts is an accurate description of what they are, welfare.

    The banks revealed so conveniently of all that toxic asset are now free and clear to make huge profits for their stockholders. those are the people they service

  • Jeannie, your description of the bank bailout is pretty grossly inaccurate. For one thing, several of the banks took the money only because Hank Paulson made them. And for another, it’s all or very nearly all been paid back, with interest, by now.

    There’s plenty of corporate welfare to complain about for sure…start with oil companies and defense contractors.

    But some very smart economists say TARP saved us from an even scarier economic disaster, and I tend to believe them.

    If we had 20% unemployment and a Dow of 1500 now, would that be worth it to have avoided TARP?

    Finally, you’re probably preaching to the choir because libertarians like Christine hate TARP at least as much as you do.

  • John Wilson


    As a writer you are doing a disservice to your readers by, essentially, saying “here are some potential occasions for corruption, so if YOU the reader go investigate perhaps YOU will find it!”

  • Well, with the banks holding out their hands for government welfare and the big corporations receiving government welfare and tax cuts on top of that, and then of course, the top 1% gets tax cuts and the republicans want tax cuts and the tea party wants tax cuts and everyone wants tax cuts from borrowed money.

    :[ No stonewalling here…NLOL Christine, it’s not funny.

  • Christine

    lol, Jeanie, I can barely “stonewall” my teenager’s bad behavior when it rears it’s ugly head. Thank goodness it is not too often because I caught it early. But even though I am a strong-willed type, teenagers these days are tough.

  • I didn’t mean you alone…I meant the collective bunch of you…lol

  • Christine

    Jeanne, like I have any power to stonewall anything. Now, that’s funny!

  • christine,lol

    there are investigations underway that are being stonewalled. ???

    You mean the way the Republicans/Conservatives are stonewalling any progress this country might make towards a better future?

    You mean, like what you are attempting to do by writing this article?

  • Christine

    Handy, you are overlooking the obvious, and as mentioned in part one, there are investigations underway that are being stonewalled. I spoke directly to someone involved. So, will we ever know the truth? Also, I haven’t gotten to the radical agenda yet, as stated at the end part two, it will be in part three. May be a while though, in the middle of some personal issues.

  • John Wilson

    Wow! Today I learned that a lot of politicians from Chicago know each other. Wow!

  • If you say “crooked,” prove it, don’t just assert it.

    You use “radical” to add more ominous notes to a non-ominous story. It is highly questionable whether the individuals and groups you mention are making a coordinated effort toward “global governance.” That’s just Nalle-speak. You can do better. I hope.

    And the only “redistribution of wealth” outlined in your article is into the bank accounts of companies and their investors. Not into the hands of the poor[a kind of distribution I would support and you wouldn’t, but in any case, it isn’t what you’re describing.]

    If the result of all this activity is more jobs and a boost to the economy, this is a good thing. You could at least acknowledge that possibility.

    Just finding some connections between people you don’t like and large amounts of money forms a very partial story. You haven’t connected the dots. There’s no there there. If you believe there is, it’s incumbent upon you to prove it.

  • Christine

    Handy, crooked means dishonest and many of them on the right and left are, especially in this case. Crony Capitalism IS dishonest! “Radical” on the other hand is not always bad, and it is up for interpretation whether or not you think “global governance” and “redistribution of wealth” are “radical” or not. I happen to think so.

  • Christine, you just reversed my argument, without answering it all, and with nothing to back you up.

    I didn’t say anything about Republican crony capitalism. But by the [quite low] standards of your article, why wouldn’t it be news? Does it not bother you a tiny bit?

    Report about anything you want, of course. But when you start attaching “radical” and “crooked” to people’s names and reputations, you had better be able to prove it. Otherwise, you are writing propaganda, not journalism.

    Same for the talk-radio hacks who wrote the ridiculous book you keep promoting.

  • Christine

    Handy, I guess when Republicans partake in crony capitalism it is evil and worth reporting, but NOT when Democrats do it.

  • As in the first part of this endless and pointless article, the message is clear [if numbingly repetitive]:

    Capitalism is wonderful when people whose politics Christine [and Dave Nalle and Troxler and Brown] agree with are doing it, and ominous and scary when people she disagrees with are doing it.

    Throw in a few [completely unsubstantiated] labels of “radical” and “crooked,” and you have a thoroughly substance-free conspiracy theory.

    What is smelly or illegal about any of the moneymaking activities you describe?

    Basing your “moral compass” entirely on how far left or right you perceive an investor to be is disgraceful. And certainly not journalism.

  • greenhunt

    These are relationships you’ve pointed out. Is there another portion of the article I missed? I kept thinking you were preparing us for a point. but then the punchline never came. So these people know eachother and somehow this is a massive left-wing conspiracy? Involving Goldman Sachs? Good Lord. Please try and do a better job moving forward.

  • Christine

    Good morning all.

    EL, I disclosed that in my interview with one of the authors a while ago here on BC.
    Interview With Lee Troxler, Co-Author of Killing Wealth, Freeing Wealth. And linked to it in part one. So, since I had a ton of data in my head from helping with Chapter 10 of their book, I decided to write a story about it. Thanks for the nice comments Silas, Ruvy and Jeannie (lol).

  • Christine,

    You could also investigate these characters.

    : 0 catch ya later

  • So Christine, You have proven that everybody in your article knows one-another. nice job

    BTW, the Leaf will be available to the general public in December.

  • Christine,

    I find your new style of writing hard to believe…

    I recognized you in the summery.

    Also, you could take a hundred of these dropped names, and replace them with Republicans. the same old story…

    : )It’s not what you know, it’s who.

  • It’s odd that you keep referring to “Killing Wealth, Freeing Wealth” yet make no mention that you contributed to it as Stubborn Facts Radio indicates. Any reason?

  • Ruvy

    Real nice job, Christine.

  • You’ve laid out a very compelling article here. The problem I have is that the other extreme has a reciprocal web of cash and financial interests here as well. I’m not convinced at the green movement’s “honesty” but at the same rate what have we learned from the opposition? Hopefully this piece can open up some debate which leads to reasonable conclusions.