"Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius [best known around these parts as the Kansas governor who vetoed the state's "shall-issue" handgun permit bill in 2006, only to be overridden by an overwhelming margin in both houses of the state Legislature four days later] recently corrected three years of tax returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional errors"—the latest tax troubles for an Obama administration nominee."
The full details of this latest embarrassment of the Messiah really aren't that important; the two main points to take away from these continual embarrassing financial revelations from his Cabinet appointees is that
1. The tax code is so irritatingly complex and labyrinthine due to Congress finagling all sorts of sweet breaks and loopholes for their supporters that it's all too easy for even law-abiding taxpayers to completely screw up while calculating just how much blood they're going to have to squeeze out to the Feds (this may have been the case here, if one is inclined to give Sebelius the benefit of the doubt, which we aren't quite prepared to do), and
2. If these cases are so easy to find and be used against the "elite" among us who enjoy access to the best accountants and tax attorneys money can buy, imagine how easy it would be to build a similar case against an ordinary peasant should the IRS be inclined to do so, either by itself or perhaps at the request of another government agency that wishes to find some way to put someone in a whole mess of legal trouble.
One example: IRS agent Jeff Novitzky and his Ahab-like quest to put Moby Dick Barry Bonds in jail, even though the crimes Bonds is accused of committing have nothing whatsoever to do with any tax issues, save for the allegation that Bonds lied under oath when questioned in front of a grand jury about evidence that Novitzky apparently came up with while investigating Bonds. In fact, most of the charges against Bonds have been dismissed except for the perjury rap, and he may yet beat that one, due to the many inconsistencies, errors, omissions and alleged outright lies made by Novitzky during his own testimony before the same grand jury. See the article for the complete story, it's actually quite fascinating and well-researched.
This whole mess is compelling evidence that the U.S. Tax Code is in dire need of a complete overhaul, perhaps even switching the whole shebang to a system such as the Fair Tax. Until then, it's quite entertaining to watch nominee after nominee wriggle like a worm on a fishhook when their shady finances are brought into the light of day.
"So what else is GM other than a car maker and lender of money?
Its value IS to be "bailed out". I say this in all seriousness.
It's a huge interface with millions of voters- and their livelihoods, savings, pensions, debts, mobility, their health...
The only thing that makes GM valuable at this price is that it is a ready made conduit, all set up. What for?
Delivering loyalty payments from "the government" to reliable voters. Buying new loyalty from stockholders. Buying gratitude from the workers kept on who aren't paying their way. Patronage, from contracts and positions.
That, and an unrealistic pension/medical benefits scheme which, when it fails, can be "rescued". Think of how thankful all those sick old people will be!"
Read the whole article. It's brilliant.
(h/t to Tam, whose blog post was the inspiration for this author)
"Because they wish to stay here despite a valid deportation order, and after losing several appeals, solely because their distant nephew is now the President" isn't a very important reason at all, Mr. Noorani. To imply that everyone who files an asylum claim is genuinely in fear for their lives is disingenuous, and robs the credibility of those who really have a true asylum argument.
"Since Kenya gained independence from Britain in 1963, periodic tensions have arisen among the Luos - Onyango's tribe - and some of Kenya's other tribes, including the Kikuyus."
The illegal alien apologists are really beginning to spectacularly grasp at just about any straw to help justify Ms. Onyango's continued presence here, aren't they? Should we now allow the entire population of Kenya to emigrate here because of these nebulous "tensions"? Good Lord, we have daily "tensions" in this country. Maybe, if I list all of them on the application, Kenya will accept my asylum bid if I'm ever caught there illegally.
... it looks like GM is still going to have to declare bankruptcy, but not before axing its scapegoat CEO over the weekend at the royal direction of the Messiah, who arrogantly didn't even bother to consult Congress before taking that questionably constitutional action.
Did Rick Wagoner run GM into the ground? We have no idea. We would submit, though, that it's the shareholder's job to decide whether to fire him, not the government's. But we guessPresident Obama's running the company now, however, so apparently he and only he is competent enough to decide who stays and who goes in Detroit.
Entering bankruptcy protection months ago would have allowed the company to legally reorganize its debt as well as force the UAW to renegotiate the burdensome contracts that are helping to kill the domestic auto industry, and as a plus the board would have kept their collective manhood instead of accepting the Faustian bargain of allowing the government to clumsily meddle in their private affairs in exchange for a failed infusion of taxpayer money, which then obligated them to meekly submit to the recent random staffing whims of President Obama and "Turbo-Tax Tim" Geithner, neither of whom have apparently ever held a job with a private for-profit company in their entire lives. How would they know what would be the best course of action for such a firm? They don't have a clue, of course, but they scarily seem to have some sort of dreamy Chavezian vision of how they wish for it to operate.
Good luck with that, sirs. This is the real world, not some university socialist intellectual exercise.
"Those cops should have been overwhelmed on the spot, and told that further assertion of their presumption would have been very bad for their "health and safety"."
Billy, commenting on the incredibly sad and infuriating story of how police in Doncaster, England, helped cause the deaths of a young family in a house fire (including a husband, an eight months-pregnant wife and a three-year-old boy who were all roasted alive, and a five-year-old girl left in critical condition) by actively preventing the neighbors from desperately trying to save them, instead insisting that everyone (including the cowardly cops themselves) had to wait for the fire department to show up "for health and safety reasons".
"Another witness said some friends and neighbours ignored the police warnings and tried to reach the family with ladders and a hosepipe. But again the police intervened and stopped them." (Emphasis mine)
Those louts should immediately be jailed and charged with negligent homicide or whatever they call that crime in England, because their criminal inactions absolutely contributed to a shocking degree the tragic demise of that innocent family.
"Witnesses said police arrived 'several minutes' before firemen but South Yorkshire police refused to give the exact time, citing 'data protection' rules." (Emphasis angrily mine)
"Protecting" their own fat yellow behinds, more accurately.
I don't know how any of the lot can ever show their shameful faces in public again.
One isn't supposed to prejudge people solely from their outward appearance, but that's sometimes easier said than done, especially when said person has "F--- Bitches" tattooed on their cheek.
Should my wife or I happen to meet this person in a dark alley one night, I'll be much more comfortable knowing that I'm prepared to deal with his ugly, predatory attitude towards women, and apparently anyone else not down with "His S---".
Two examples of the kind of intrusive, unnecessary laws that turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into low-level criminals, purely out of frustration:
1. Residents of Spokane, Washington have been forced to drive across the border to Idaho in order to smuggle back dishwasher detergent that contains phosphates, because the town burghers there have seen fit to ban the sale of any cleaner that actually works:
"Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe's left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand."
And using even more precious, precious water in order to do so. Not very efficient at all, it seems.
"For his part, [resident Ken] Beck has taken to washing his dishes on his machine's pots-and-pans cycle, which takes longer and uses five gallons more water. Beck wonders if that isn't as tough on the environment as phosphates.
'How much is this really costing us?"Beck said. "Aren't we transferring the environmental consequences to something else?'"
You're missing the whole point, Ken. It's not about making sense; it makes the environmental lunatics feel better about themselves to force you to adopt a much grosser and less efficient lifestyle, which is the only thing that counts with them, not actual results.
2. American citizens who wish to buy and drink raw (unpasteurized and unhomogenized) milk are increasingly being forced to go to the milk "black market" (who would have thought such a thing existed? It's only inevitable, though, once the "authorities" ban something, especially an item as innocuous as this) in order to obtain their desired beverage.
According to this article, the sale of raw milk is illegal in some fashion in 42 states, and, naturally, it's against Federal law to transport it across state lines in order to sell it, ostensibly for "safety reasons", although raw milk from healthy cows processed in a sanitary facility is just as benign as treated milk, the author correctly notes.
It would almost be laughable, if the consequences for the producers weren't so serious:
"late last year an Ohio raw milk co-op was raided at gunpoint by sheriffs' deputies. And state officials regularly try to shut down dairies that sell raw milk."
That's right, Ohio residents - your tax dollars went to fund a dangerous armed paramilitary raid of the equivalent of a milk speakeasy. Seem like a rational decision?
I didn't think so.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul (a physician who presumably knows a thing or two about human health) has introduced legislation to repeal the ban at the Federal level. We wish him success in restoring the right of free Americans to purchase whatever it is that they wish to drink. After all, as one activist puts it,
"'People have the legal right to drink it,' says Pete Kennedy, interim president [of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund]. 'The problem is finding ways to enable them to exercise their right.'"
If the Messiah and his Congressional cronies get their way, these kinds of heavy-handed governmental overreaches into every aspect of one's everyday life will soon become the norm, instead of the exception.
A veritable plethora of interesting news stories about the only people "professional enough to carry firearms in public":
1. Orlando, Florida Police Chief Val Demings is in a little bit of hot water after her Sig Sauer service pistol, along with other gear such as handcuffs and a baton, was stolen from her official SUV, which was parked in front of her home at the time.
An unfortunate mishap that could happen to anyone? Perhaps, except for a few minor details:
a. An inspection of Chief Demings' vehicle "did not observe any forced entry".
Translation: She seems to have left the vehicle unlocked.
b. "Since 2007, the Police Department has replaced all of its in-car gun locks and outfitted all new police vehicles with alarms."
Translation: It looks very much like she took advantage of neither of the kind of important security items available to her that would have been able to help prevent just the sort of theft that happened to her.
c. Chief Demings didn't bother to publicly admit to her serious error in judgment, initially only reporting the crime to the mayor and her own Internal Affairs Unit, and filing the official burglary report with the Orlando County Sheriff's Department. The sheriff? Her husband, Jerry Demings, who ironically instituted a policy in 2006 barring his employees from leaving any weapons in an unattended vehicle, after a rash of break-ins of police vehicles. Her department currently has no such policy, but will presumably have one in the very near future.
Translation: She apparently tried to keep this whole incident quiet by using the sheriff's department (that her husband coincidentally and conveniently runs) to investigate the theft, instead of her own department's detectives. Nope, no conflict of interest there at all.
"However, agencies including the Orlando Police Department previously have alerted the public about some previous gun thefts, especially involving officers' assault weapons. Unlike previous thefts of guns from rank-and-file officers, Demings said she told her Internal Affairs office to discipline her without going through an investigation.
Her investigators declined the offer, saying it would be treating her differently."
Nice try, Chief.
Sorry, but you're going to have to go through the same process that you make the officers you lead go through when they have a similar monumental screwup. Now's a shining opportunity to put your leadership skills on display and demonstrate that you're willing to be disciplined by the same policies that you expect everyone else to abide by. Special thanks, of course, must go to the Orlando PD investigators who went by the book and refused to allow her to weasel out of taking her official medicine.
Chief Demings explained that she was having houseguests that night which included young children, and that she was only trying to keep them from being able to access her firearm. An admirable goal, but she absolutely has to be one heck of a lot smarter about how she goes about doing it, especially given her extensive experience and knowledge of criminal techniques and behaviors.
As for her punishment, Jim Philips of the XM radio show The Philips Phile (which is based in the Orlando area) came up with the right (paraphrased) sort of idea for her possible punishment when he suggested that she should get the same penalty that an ordinary officer with her years of experience would receive. No more, no less. Her deputy chief should be more than capable of running the department during any enforced vacation without pay she may have to endure.
"I would say to the community 'Anybody can be a victim, it happened to me,'" she said. "Do everything you can to safeguard your family, your home and yourself."
Oh, do be quiet.
2. Indiana State Trooper Chris Pestow is finding out the hard way that his bosses are aware of the social networking site Facebook, and that if you're a police officer it's probably not a good idea to post pictures of yourself pointing a pistol at your head, or describing what you do as "picking up trash for a living", or writing the following about homeless people:
"'Let someone, homeless or not, try and stab me with a pen, knife, spoon, etc, not only will he fail, he'll probably end up shot. These people should have died when they were young anyway, i'm just doing them a favor.' [sic]" Those allegations are bad enough; it's even worse when your bosses find out that you've apparently been updating your Facebook profile while you're on duty in icy weather conditions. Even Pestow's online friends can grasp that simple concept:
"A friend quickly responded to that post.
'Hmmmm. how are u keeping the streets safe ... if u r on facebook? :),' the friend wrote."
Indeed.
Trooper Pestow is now under investigation for his activities, although he is still on paid duty. Indiana residents can no longer follow his on-duty extracurricular adventures, however; his Facebook page has been removed.
3. Buffalo, New York police officer Mitchell J. Thomas was given a slap on the wrist"non-criminal harassment charge" and a 22-day unpaid suspension from the force after he pleaded guilty to "displaying a loaded handgun and swearing at bar security personnel at a Main Street bar last year." (Emphasis mine)
The charge had been reduced from "menacing", for what reason we can't possibly divine (that's sarcasm, in case you don't recognize it). What's more embarrassing is that Thomas was ordered to stay away from the bar's workers:
"At the request of the prosecutor, Carney also issued a one-year order of protection to three Town Ballroom employees, instructing Thomas to stay away from them during that period."
When ordinary peasants engage in such asinine and dangerous behavior, they get jail time and lose their jobs, and deservedly so. "Officer" Thomas, apparently solely due to the fact that he's one of the "special people", merely gets the equivalent of a traffic ticket and a three-week time-out, despite being barred from interacting with three innocent citizens.
"The judge reminded the 10-year police veteran that being a police officer 'is a career, not a job.'" I wonder what kind of outrageous behavior it actually takes for a cop to have their "career" ended up there in Buffalo?
Remember last week when Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder and Hillary Clinton were lecturing us that illegally sourced U.S. guns were one of the main causes of all of the drug violence in Mexico?
Well, the only way to truly confirm that claim would be to compare the serial numbers of the seized firearms with BATFE records, and guess what?
According to an IRN USA Radio News report on XM radio this evening (and confirming what Lou Dobbs of CNN noted in a recent broadcast), the Mexican government is refusing to provide any of those numbers for inspection and comparison, fueling further suspicion that most of the weapons are in fact coming from elsewhere in Latin America, most likely via Mexico's southern border.
As the radio commentator said just now (paraphrased as I was driving at the time),
"The U.S. government has to come up with a lot more concrete evidence than what they've presented so far before having the nerve to ask a free society to give up their rights in order to solve a problem in another, far more repressive country".
Here's a cool little summary of a story that perfectly illustrates the type of Chicago corruption that's now tainting our White House, courtesy of Second City Cop:
"Ok, let's just review some of Illinois pay-to-play history:
An individual we'll call "Michelle O" is hired by the U of C hospitals for a job so important, that when she leaves it, it sits vacant for a year and is cut from the budget in 2009. For this job, she gets over $100,000 to figure out how to increase minority outreach;
An individual we'll call "Barack O" is elected to the US Senate and gets a committee assignment that will allow him to direct a number of earmarks totaling over $1 million to the U of C hospitals for all sorts of stuff.
The U of C, in a completely voluntary sort of way, gives "Michelle O" a raise that triples her salary in a job that is so important, they eliminate it a year later.
"Barack O" moves on to a better job in charge of all sorts of cool stuff, including the people threatening to take away the U of C Medicare Certification."
And now the Messiah wishes to oversee health care for the entire country, ensuring that everyone will soon be on the receiving end of this sort of incompetent care.
Does anyone who voted for him have buyer's remorse yet?
... is Dallas, Texas police officer Robert Powell. The lead sentence of the story says it all:
"A police officer pulled over a professional football player rushing to see his dying mother-in-law, drew his gun, threatened the player with jail and held him in the hospital parking lot as she died, officials said Thursday."
Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats had waited until no traffic was coming, then carefully passed through a red light in the middle of the night in an attempt to get his family to the hospital in time to say goodbye.
The family just barely made it; Moats didn't. He was too busy dealing with "Officer" Powell, who at one point had his gun drawn and pointed at Moats' wife, and who threatened to arrest Moats for running said light and for not immediately producing proof of insurance, a bogus charge if there ever was one.
Sincere appreciation must go to Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle for immediately dismissing the ticket, publicly apologizing to Moats and his family while making sure to draw attention to the fact that Moats never tried to use his status as an NFL player to his advantage, and suspending Powell pending an investigation and his hopeful timely future sacking.
We fervently hope that "Officer" Powell, a through-and-through bully and complete jerk without a scintilla of compassion, is never allowed to pin on a badge again.
Condolences to Ryan Moats and his family in their time of loss.
The Messiah's dear "Auntie Zeituni", Zeituni Onyango, is gearing up to fight for a third time to stay in the country since being ordered deported in 2004.
We remind everyone that this illegal immigrant has been living in public housing on our dime the entire time.
'"The case is unusual in American history because it's a relative of the president involved in immigration matters,' said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies."
We beg to disagree. The President isn't our ruler. He is merely a common citizen, and he and his distant relatives are subject to the same laws as everyone else.
"Onyango has lost several attempts to fight deportation, said immigration court spokeswoman Elaine Komis."
It would seem that she has had many chances over the last 5 years to argue her case before numerous judges. Why, then, is she still here, and why hasn't ICE been dispatched to pick her up?
If President Obama took his oath of office seriously, he would immediately publicly urge his aunt to obey the law and submit herself for deportation. We already know, based on his latest socialist legislative proposals, that he doesn't respect his oath, so we won't waste time hoping such an appeal will happen.
E.J. Montini, a writer for the Arizona Republic, devoted his column today to joining those persons tiresomely advocating the closure of the supposed "gun show loophole".
Here's my email response to him:
Mr. Montini, I imagine you've already received quite an earful from your other readers, but on the off chance I'm mistaken, I'd like to address the topic you brought up in your column today. Surely you realize that you're being disingenuous when you describe as "teeny, tiny" the " loophole" that you believe should be closed, and that cutting off citizen-to-citizen sales at gun shows would also necessitate barring all private sales between law-abiding citizens? During the debate for the Brady Bill, this very subject was discussed and specifically addressed, which is why there is no requirement mandating FFL transfers for private sales at gun shows, or anywhere else, for that matter. It was generally acknowledged during that period that the sale of privately-owned items to and from individuals, particularly those item specifically protected in the Constitution, should not be required to go through a Federally-sanctioned transfer agent, along with the attendant costs of such transfers, currently $25-50 per firearm. There is no gun show loophole, therefore there is nothing to "close". Another reason that private sales were never regulated was the specter of mandatory registration which often leads to eventual confiscation, as took place recently in such places as England and Australia, and is soon to be attempted in Canada. I'm sure you would agree that a central database of anything that's maintained by the Federal governement is a privacy-losing, freedom-sapping proposition at best, and a wide-open door to the wholesale abridgement of one's rights at the worst. What business is it of the government's what firearms I own, buy or sell privately, so long as I remain law-abiding? As a clearer example, should private automobile sales be subject to mandatory dealer transfers as well? Of course not. That same logic also applies to any lawfully-owned property Even if such a requirement were to be imposed, it could be argued that in-state sales between residents are not subject to Federal oversight due to the Tenth Amendment, and it's a real possibility that the regulation would be immediately overturned in court. Regarding the mess in Mexico, which natural-born rights would you suggest we U.S. citizens give up next in order to facilitate law enforcement in a sovereign country separate from our own? How about starting with the First Amendment, which protects your line of work? This is just a quick, off-the-cuff response to your column. I can provide a more detailed essay, complete with references, if you desire. In addition, I have a website, The Northern Muckraker, that often addresses these and other interesting issues. You are welcome to stop by and contribute anytime. Respectfully, Douglas J. Hester
Reprinted below in its entirety is a poignant resignation letter from AIG Executive Vice-President Jake DeSantis that was obtained and published by the New York Times. DeSantis makes many valid points, and he at least seems to have earned his bonus (which he now is going to donate to charity), unlike White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who "earned" approximately $320,000 during a brief 14-month stint in 2000-1 as a board member of Freddie Mac , during which he served on no committees and presumably had little or no official duties, and who was present when many of the destructive policies that helped to create the current housing crisis were implemented.
Contrast these two paragraphs from the Chicago Tribune's excellent expose of the Messiah's hypocritical chief henchman:
"During a September 2000 board meeting—midway through Emanuel's 14-month term—Freddie Mac lobbyist R. Mitchell Delk laid out a strategy titled "Political Risk Management" aimed at influencing lawmakers and blunting pressure in Congress for more regulation. Through Delk's initiative, Freddie Mac sponsored more than 80 fundraisers that raised at least $1.7 million for congressional candidates despite a federal law that bans corporations from direct political activity."
with
"The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were "commercial information" exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency." (All emphases mine)
Astounding. Freddie Mac is public when it's convenient for Mr. Emanuel while he's with them, and they're apparently also private when it's convenient for Mr. Emanuel, now that he's not. How nice for both of them.
The White House and Congress have offered no criticism of the fact that Freddie Mac (and Fannie Mae) are still on track to give out retention bonuses to employees, which is completely different from their withering condemnation of AIG for having the exact same policy, which is merely to honor legally binding contracts entered into before the Feds took them over.
Read the rest of the eye-opening article to see just how deeply involved Emanuel was in the incestuous relationship between the federal government and the incompetent and reckless housing agency, which extended to the blatant conflict of interest he had when he served on the House Financial Services Committee, which had direct oversight over Freddie Mac, while he was in that body from 2003-9.
Back to DeSantis's letter:
DEAR Mr. Liddy,
It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.
After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.
You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.
I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.
The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.
I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.
But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.
My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.
That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.
At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.
I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.
You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.
Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.
The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.
So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.
That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.
On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.
This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.
Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”
Sincerely,
Jake DeSantis
It certainly seems as if Mr. DeSantis will be sorely missed at AIG. Maybe he can go over to Freddie Mac and help clean up the massive mess that Emanuel and other political patronage appointees created there, and perhaps even receive a well-earned bonus for his efforts, since that agency has not yet received any official pressure whatsoever to rescind their reward program.
... are Philadelphia, Pennsylvania police officer Jeffrey Cujdik and the rest of his merry band of plainclothes narcotics officers, who are accused of rousting mom-and-pop convenience stores on trumped-up charges of selling small plastic bags sometimes used for packaging drugs, and subsequently stealing cash, large amounts of cigarettes and other store items such as food and drinks from the shops.
More chillingly, no less than eight stores have independently reported that Cujdik and the other "officers" did something very curious on the raids - they disabled the security systems upon entry by smashing them to pieces:
"The Daily News interviewed seven store owners and an attorney representing another. Independently, they told similar stories: Cujdik and fellow officers destroyed or cut the wires to surveillance cameras. Some store owners said they watched as officers took food and slurped energy drinks. Other store owners said cigarette cartons, batteries, cell phones and candy bars were missing after raids.
The officers also confiscated cash from the stores - a routine practice in Narcotics Field Unit raids - but didn't record the full amount on police property receipts, the shop owners allege."
As a police official (unnamed, of course; they don't want to be publicly known as a blue-wall crosser) notes in the article, there is absolutely no reason for cops to ever disable a videocamera system, as that basically amounts to evidence tampering:
"As for those broken surveillance cameras, officers have 'no reason to cut camera wires or destroy cameras,' said a high-ranking Philadelphia police official, who requested anonymity. 'None whatsoever.'
'It would look like they're trying to hide something,' the official said. 'It would look like they don't want to be on the surveillance camera themselves.'"
You think?
The heat has gotten so bad for the uniform-clad thugs that even their informants are starting to roll over on them, one actually going on record by name in print to outline how they benefited from Cujdik's largesse at the expense of the hard-working store owners:
"At least three former police informants who worked with Cujdik told the Daily News that he often gave them cartons of cigarettes.
'When he raided a corner store, he'd give me cigarettes,' said Tiffany Gorham, a former Cujdik informant."
Thankfully, Cujdik and the rest the bullies he led on these profitable raids are now under investigation by both local and federal agencies, which hopefully spells the end of their ugly little reign of terror in Philly.
If the allegations against them are substantiated, those (soon-to-be-ex) cops had better start hoarding all of those stolen cigarettes. We hear that they're valuable currency where those reprehensible creeps are soon headed.
Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a 93-year-old Japanese man, has been officially certified by his government as having survived both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bomb attacks in 1945.
Yamaguchi was on business in Hiroshima when he suffered radiation burns in the first attack. He then went home to Nagasaki just in time to get another dose 3 days later.
We suppose he's either the luckiest or the unluckiest man alive, depending on one's perspective.
“In September, when the conservatorships were established, I made clear to Congress that we had developed, with the new CEOs and with an outside pay consultant, employee retention programs” in consultation with Treasury"... “I stated then my view that it was very important to work with the current management teams and employees to encourage them to stay and to continue to make important improvements to the enterprises”... “But I can also say that we run a great risk of these same employees deciding this is the last straw and walking away,” he wrote. “The loss of key personnel would be devastating to the companies and to the government’s efforts to stabilize the housing system.”
James Lockhart, Federal regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from a letter to Congressman Barney Frank and obtained by Politico, explaining why he's refusing to rescind retention bonuses worth up to $1 million for top executives at those two institutions.
It's so nauseatingly bad to reward retention at AIG that Congress is attempting to pass an unconstitutional law taxing those specific awards at 90%, yet it's perfectly OK to pass out those very same types of goodies at the FM's, seemingly solely because those two completely incompetent companies are fortunate enough to be government-sponsored enterprises (GSE's)?
It appears that AIG's crime was that it wasn't as closely tied to the government as the other recent failures. No bonuses for you, then, but plenty for our little pets.
The British government has been forced to apologize to "patients" of Stafford Hospital in England, which is part of the National Health Service, after absolutely horrendous conditions were uncovered there:
"Between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected in a three-year period at the National Health Service (NHS) hospital"
Here's how the daughter of one patient described what she personally observed there while camping out to make sure her mother was properly cared for in her last days, because no one employed at that obscene abattoir was going to help in any way:
"'What we saw in those eight weeks will haunt us for the rest of our lives,' said the 47-year-old. 'We saw patients drinking out of flower vases they were so thirsty.'
'There were patients wandering around the hospital and patients fighting. It was continuous through the night. Patients were screaming out in pain because you just could not get pain relief.'
'It was like a Third World country hospital. It was an absolute disgrace.'"
The article naturally doesn't mention anyone losing their jobs or being charged criminally over the lack of care at the facility that basically amounted to killing patients because of neglect, only quoting hand-wringing high-up muckety-mucks expressing regret over the appalling conditions, but not detailing in any way just what they're going to do to fix them.
Just think - we too can have this sort of high-quality medical care as well. All we need to do is follow the Messiah's directive and accept the yoke of nationalized health care being put around our necks, as well.
King Emperor Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley of Chicago has come up with a hare-brained new scheme to save his city some money (and, probably not so coincidentally, a great way to royally piss off the CPD, which has been working without a new union contract for more than 18 months) - he's proposing allowing private armed security guards to take over many routine police functions, including writing tickets for parking violations, graffiti "and other minor infractions", whatever that means. Drug possession? Burglary? The possibilities seem endless.
That's a really great idea, isn't it? Let's let people with Lord only knows what kind of training and accountable only to their corporate employers roam the streets looking for jaywalkers and other minor miscreants to prey upon. We say "prey upon", because one has to realize that quotas would almost certainly be a necessary part of such an arrangement, in order to ensure that such a plan would be potentially profitable enough for a private company to strike such a deal, which is kind of why law enforcement isn't a for-profit enterprise in the first place, as nasty personal enrichment operations at the expense of the peasants they're supposed to be protecting and serving occur all too often even among regular sworn officers. Imagine now being a minimum-wage guard who's told that he or she must write, say, $500 in tickets per shift in order to keep their position. The abuse of such power, particularly in a city already famous for its systemic corruption, would be enormous, to say the least.
We haven't even mentioned the unfairness of one private citizen enforcing the law on another one. How would appeals and court appearances be handled? Police officers are sworn for a reason - to let them (as well as us) know the deadly seriousness of the job that cops do, and that they carry the weight of the legal and criminal justice systems behind them. Exactly what would keep non-sworn, poorly-trained private contractors from deciding to just do whatever they felt like? They haven't sworn an oath to uphold anything or protect and serve anyone, and wouldn't be beholden whatsoever to the peasantry they'd be let loose on.
What about insurance and indemnification issues? If a police officer wrongly harms someone in the performance of their duties, one can sue the city for damages. What happens when a security guard shoots someone because they were scribbling on a wall and didn't put down the paint can fast enough, and the company simply goes out of business to avoid responsibility? How does the harmed citizen then get redress for their complaint? For that matter, how much of the tax money supposedly "saved" by this ridiculous plan would go to paying out claims made by victims of these ill-prepared guards?
The privatizing of law enforcement is a terrible idea, for these and many other reasons. Daley should redouble his efforts to give Chicago cops a workable contract agreeable to all sides, and let them go back to (for the most part, with a few notable exceptions) properly policing the city.
Desperate to protect Treasury Secretary "Turbo-Tax Tim" Geithner from additional criticisms of his work, "The Most Open and Transparent Administration in History" refused to allow the press to televise Geithner's latest trillion-dollar spending proposal when he announced it this morning:
"The secretary announced the initiative in a Treasury Department room with no cameras allowed."
We're paying for it; why aren't we allowed to watch the announcement of it?
This unnecessary censorship by the Messiah has rapidly become boringly normal, which is remarkable behavior for a Chief Executive who campaigned so passionately against the sort of official secrecy that was a hallmark of the Bush Presidency.
A Maricopa County, Arizona judge has dismissed all charges against George Iknadosian, a Phoenix gun shop owner accused of being a conduit for firearms being shipped to Mexico:
"Because the gun buyers all were eligible to acquire firearms, he said, their deception did not amount to a "material falsification." Consequently, [Judge Robert] Gottsfield ruled, the evidence did not show felonious conduct by Iknadosian."
We have no idea whether Iknadosian was or was not involved in such a trafficking scheme. Hopefully, if he was mixed up in such behavior, the prosecution will be able to re-file charges using proper evidence and prove his involvement sufficiently to send him to prison. We here at the Muckraker have no sympathy or tolerance for gunrunners, and hope that any such individuals get caught and punished for their murderous actions.
We do, however, support the rationale behind the judge's decision in this case, in that a seller of anything to a customer legally able to purchase a product simply cannot be responsible for what the purchaser subsequently does with that item. Mr. Iknadosian may yet be proven to be a perpetrator of crimes, but selling a firearm to an ineligible purchaser wasn't one of them.
Should a car dealer be held liable if one of their customers drives drunk and kills someone in their brand new Buick? What about the liquor-store owner who sold the impaired driver his vodka earlier in the day, while they were still sober? Or maybe a hardware store worker who sells a hammer to someone, who then bashes a victim in the head with it?
The same concept applies to firearm sales as well. A gun dealer cannot be a mind reader; he can only establish that someone is qualified to make the purchase by having the buyer fill out a worksheet that's a Federal crime to make false statements on, and by performing the required Brady NCIS instant check. After that, the dealer's obligations have been satisfied, and a legal transfer takes place. Any subsequent crimes have to have the blame for them put on the person who committed them, not the person who legally sold an object to the criminal. If Iknadosian was in fact an arms dealer, then prove his personal involvement, and not some second-degree guilt by association for his store merely being the point of sale for the guns.
What seems to be the most disturbing aspect of this case is that it appears that other employees of the store seem to have been leaned on quite heavily, and perhaps wrongly, to "flip" on Iknadosian:
"About a dozen co-defendants pleaded guilty to felony charges before other judges. Gottsfield's ruling on Wednesday appears to question whether they committed the crimes for which they were convicted." (Emphasis mine)
Perhaps the workers were threatened with trumped-up charges that carry multiple decades of hard prison time if they didn't immediately roll over and cooperate with whatever the prosecutors wanted, even though concrete evidence of their involvement wasn't evident. These connected cases should be immediately reopened and the plea negotiations fully examined, as there have been far too many past examples of official misconduct from prosecutors vastly overcharging minor or nonexistent crimes in order to obtain a quick plea and (sometimes fraudulent) testimony against a higher-up.
The administration that vowed to be the "most transparent in history" is refusing to allow the press to cover the Messiah's receiving of a press award, causing the following Monty Pythonian sentence to actually be printed on the Los Angeles Times's Web site:
"The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press."
Well, how is he going to get it, then? Carrier pigeon?
Even the mighty U.S. Secret Service isn't above the law, as they embarrassingly found out the other day when Baltimore, Maryland police towed away a vehicle that the Feds had repeatedly left illegally parked, accruing at least three tickets that the "professionals" chose to simply ignore.
The vehicle was part of Jenna Bush's security detail at her Baltimore residence, the operation of which is certainly no emergency situation that would justify the flagrant flouting of the everyday regulations that every other peasant that lives in that parking spot-challenged area is forced to put up with.
"Department of Transportation officials said an agent paid to get the car released and will pay all fines incurred. The City typically tows after 3 outstanding parking tickets."
It's about time those haughty agents found out that they have to obey the same laws as everyone else when not on an emergency call or protecting an important active government member such as the President, although the lesson doesn't seem to be sinking in too well:
"We stopped by Miss Bush's home Friday evening and saw one Secret Service vehicle parked across the street with a visitors pass displayed. We were careful not to identify the car, but noticed it was parked illegally - in a tow away zone."
Tow 'em again, then, and keep towing them until they figure out how to play by the rules, just like everyone else in that section of town does.
Congratulations to the Baltimore PD for keeping a level playing field in their town, and double congrats for also making the Secret Service cough up every dime of the fines they owed.
After reviewing the tortured legal reasoning in the summary of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision, it's apparent to even this non-lawyer that she saw fit to issue the injunction barring the legal concealed carry of firearms in national parks solely because there was no study done to evaluate the possible detrimental "environmental" effects of allowing people to do so:
"The lynchpin [sic] of Defendants’ response is that the Final Rule has no environmental impacts–and that Defendants were not required to perform any environmental analysis–because the Final Rule only authorizes persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, and does not authorize persons to discharge, brandish, or otherwise use the concealed, loaded, and operable firearms. In other words, the Final Rule has no environmental impacts according to Defendants because the Final Rule does not authorize any environmental impacts. By relying on this tautology, Defendants (1) abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, whether authorized by the Final Rule or not, and (2) ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts, including (i) Defendants’ own long-standing belief under the previous regulations that allowing only inoperable and stored firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges was necessary to safeguard against certain risks to the environment and (ii) the almost universal view among interested parties that persons who possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges will use them for any number of reasons, including self-defense against persons and animals (all of which suggests that the Final Rule will have some impact on the environment)."
Umm, excuse me, Judge? There was no study done because there is absolutely no harm done to the environment from carrying what's essentially an inert piece of metal and wood or polymer into and through the parks!! By your reasoning, one would think that firearms were made out of plutonium or asbestos or even something worse, like maybe tobacco.
The only possible "harm" (for lack of a better, much less harsh term) to the precious, precious environment could only come about if the weapon were to be lawfully discharged to defend the firearm's owner against attack from predators (whether human or animal), in which case the unbelievably negligent effect of having a scant few grams of lead possibly being left in the park grounds (and this would only come about if the lawful firearm owner were to miss their target) would be completely outweighed by the fact that one or more innocent lives were saved. No spotted owls would be killed, no water would be poisoned, and I daresay that the park would somehow make it another couple of centuries or so, despite the grave injury that 200 grains or so of lead (roughly the size of a pencil eraser, for those unfamiliar with firearms) would inflict upon it. Additionally, it's safe to say that most reasonable people would value a human life more than just about anything else that can be found in a national park, if it came down to a true emergency situation.
At least that's how a rational person would see it. Judge Kollar-Kotelly apparently disagrees, and she holds the gavel.
We can only hope that more balanced appellate jurists will immediately be asked to reverse her flawed decision, which has no logical basis in either legal or real-world venues.
More when we can review the decision in its entirety.
UPDATE: Commenter jdege left a very insightful response which pointed out that I did indeed miss the most obvious point in this discussion; therefore I wish to reprint his remarks here so that everyone will be sure to see them:
"The new rule didn't authorize bringing firearms and ammunition into the park. The old rule authorized bringing firearms and ammunition into the park, provided the firearm was cased and unloaded. The new rule just allowed people to put the ammo into the firearm.
Any environmental impact under discussion is that caused by the difference between having a firearm and ammunition next to it and having a firearm with ammunition within it." (Emphases mine)
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has blocked the lawful carrying of concealed weapons by permit holders in national parks, which became law on January 11.
The story doesn't provide the details of the reasoning behind her ruling, and the Messiah's Interior Department isn't talking:
"A spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declined to comment Thursday, citing the ongoing court case."
More later, once we figure out what flimsy excuse the judge managed to come up with to justify this blatant usurpation of the rule of law.
Two more examples of the generally true adage that the "special people" among us who are "the only ones professional enough to carry firearms in public" can seemingly get away with just about anything, solely because of what they do for a living. These cases go so far beyond Jack-Booted Thug of the Week status they might as well be in the Twilight Zone:
1. Denver, Colorado police officer Charles Porter was acquitted last Thursday on charges of second-degree assault for allegedly stomping on the back of a 16-year-old boy with both feet, causing life-threatening injuries.
Juan Vasquez's crime? Running from Porter after being caught drinking alcohol. He certainly deserved the punishment he got, didn't he?
Porter's conduct was so egregious that two other officers actually crossed the "blue wall of silence" and testified against him in open court (and sincere kudos to them for doing so), yet he still managed to duck any responsibility whatsoever for his crimes:
"'Officer Porter grabs hold of the fence with both hands,' Officer Luis Rivera, who was partnered with Porter that night, testified. 'He jumps up, raises his knees and lands with both feet on the kid's back.'"
Rivera then details just how much of an absolute psychopath "Officer" Porter really is:
"Back in their squad car, Rivera said he questioned Porter as to why he jumped on the kid. 'Officer Porter said, "I don't know why I do that. It's just something I do lately. I guess I just like the way they sound."'" (Emphasis mine)
Despite the above unbelievably damning testimony from his incredulous and sickened peers, and despite his causing the city of Denver to pay close to 1 million dollars in settlements to Vasquez, "Officer" Porter is still prowling the streets as a member of the Denver Police Department.
2. Tony Arambula, a resident of Phoenix, Arizona, is filing suit against the city and Phoenix police officer Brian Lilly, seeking close to 6 million dollars in damages, after Lilly shot Arambula six times in the back while Arambula held a home invader (who was hiding under his 12-year-old son's bed at the time) at gunpoint in his home.
A tragic, yet innocent case of mistaken identity?
One could certainly be led to think so, except for:
the fact that Arambula had called 911 and reported that he indeed had the burglar in custody at gunpoint;
and the fact that Arambula's wife was in the yard when police arrived and "'told them my husband was inside, he was the one with the gun,''';
and the fact that Officer Lilly admitted in an Internal Affairs investigation to "firing at Arambula without any verbal warning";
and the fact that Lilly is on tape minutes after the incident telling his boss that "We (expletive) up".
Is the picture getting any clearer?
Special mention in this incident has to go to Sergeant Sean Coutts, Lilly's supervisor, for the following exchange:
"Sgt. Sean Coutts asked Lilly where Arambula's gun was when he fired.
'I don't know,' Lilly responded, according to the claim. 'I heard screaming and I fired.'"
Coutts reportedly responded, 'That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back….We clear?' according to a transcript reproduced in the claim."
No crossing of that "blue wall" for Sgt. Coutts, apparently.
Despite the many facts outlined above, Officer Lilly has not been departmentally sanctioned, was not charged with criminal wrongdoing and remains a member in good standing of the Phoenix Police Department.
Had any one of us peasants done something anywhere similar to the two above examples, we'd be (rightly) looking at years in prison. These two "special people" didn't even lose a day's pay because of their criminally incompetent (Lilly's) and just plain outrageously criminal (Porter's) conduct, and despite costing (Porter) and potentially costing (Lilly) their taxpayer employers millions of dollars in damage awards.
Are the residents of Denver and Phoenix safer with these two on the job?
One doesn't need a Magic 8-ball to plainly see that "All signs point to No".
An officially-labeled site of "right-wing extremism" according to the Obama Administration, which overbroadly defines that term in part as:
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into...those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
"Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", footnote, page 2.
In addition, persons who oppose illegal immigration or are against the further regulation of firearms are similarly tarred with the same smeary Federal brush in that assessment.
The Department of Homeland Security wishes individuals who come across such suspicious activity to contact them at 202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. Please act accordingly.
Posts
