Obama and the W.A.R.N. Act – “Crime Pays”

There has been almost NO coverage on the following topic. I’d say that I could explain it, short (well, short by MY standards) and sweet…but, there’s simply too much to it, and we all deserve to know the FULL story.

—–

Usually, when you commit a crime and get caught, …there are consequences. This is straight out of ‘Social Contract 101′: YOU break the law; YOU pay the fine; YOU serve the time.

Except….if you’re the current Administration.

President Obama’s team has given the defense industry permission to not only break the law, but is telling them that even if they get fined for doing so, YOU, the American Taxpayer, will pick up the tab.

Only, in addition to this king-sized “freebie” for employers, there’s a much more sinister side to the issue.

—–

Have you ever heard of the WARN Act?  Probably not, based on the absolute dearth of news reports on it. It is the “Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act“, which requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notification to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings, or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable.  Makes sense, right?

Eyes, but cannot See

“The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.”  -Helen Keller

—–

I just heard about this article last night and ….I’m waaaay confused.

Here’s the scoop from the Sacramento Bee:

The U.S. Justice Department announced Wednesday that it and the National Federation of the Blind have reached a settlement with the Sacramento Public Library Authority to supply e-book readers for blind people.

The settlement resolves allegations that the library violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by using “inaccessible” Barnes & Noble Nook electronic readers in the library lending program.

The settlement agreement calls for the library not to acquire any more e-readers that exclude blind people, who need features such as text-to-speech functions or the ability to access menus through audio or touch options.

—–

Before I comment on this, my lawyers have asked me to state for the record: “No one here has anything against anybody who is blind, deaf, mute, tall, short, red-haired, skinny, squinty, furry, or smells funny” (…ok, I may be fibbing about that last one).

All set? On we go.

This is an actual case (which was just settled), brought by the Department of freakin’ Justice about Kindles, Nooks and assorted E-Readers? Seriously? THIS is what they’re doing instead of “investigating” Fast And Furious? This is why they dropped the charges against the New Black Panther Party from the 2008 election? To allow them the time necessary to sue….the LIBRARY?

Two words: Ri. Diculous.

Adding to the dichotomy between what the DOJ should be doing and what they evidently are doing is: isn’t the Public Library, ..well, …Public? Meaning: aren’t they largely funded by our tax dollars? So isn’t this basically one arm of the government suing another one? And we’re on the hook to pay for ALL of it? You could almost say it’s inconceivable.

And another question: what if I’m blind AND deaf? A talking Kindle wouldn’t do ME any good then. In order to not discriminate against me at that point, the libraries (all of them, remember, not just some) would have to go purchase BRAILLE E-Books. Sure, they only exist conceptually right now, but why would that stop Big Daddy? It’s not as if the government has never set standards which are physically impossible before this.

I get that everyone should have reasonable access to everything. But the key word is “reasonable”. Everyone already has access to the libraries, for free, and every book within. Also, in most libraries they already have a plethora of services for the visually impaired. I will further posit that every single book in the library is likely not available on E-Readers. So what then? Should those books be taken off the shelves until they eventually make it into Nook, version 9.0?

The library was merely trying to add a new technology for their patrons, and they’re vilified for it. Next time someone questions how too much government stagnates innovation, you might want to bring up this example.

The EPA, DOJ, and virtually every other government agency seem to have a conspiratorial approach when dealing with the general population (and now even each other). I realize that “conspiratorial” may be too loaded a term for some folks, so you may substitute “totally-hive-minded” if you’d prefer.

I’ll ask you: do you think this was the biggest hot-button issue facing us today? Does every facet of our life need the government’s “wise intervention”? I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic when I say: Every time another government ‘edict’ is announced, it always seems to cost money. A LOT of money.

Our money.

That’s probably just a coincidence, though.

What they SAY vs. what they DO

Was listening to Mark Belling sub for Rush yesterday, and he mentioned an American Thinker piece which I found amazing. Let’s see if you agree.

By Jean-Claude Groulx at the American Thinker:

For all the bluster of Obama, pre- and post-2008, as well as that of Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the alleged criminal activities on Wall Street, there have been zero Wall Street prosecutions under Obama/Holder.  Compare that with his predecessors Bush and Clinton:

GAI [Government Accountability Institute] details how the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations both actually took down financial criminals – unlike the Obama administration.  Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, GAI points out how a Bush administration task force “obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200 CEOs and corporate presidents.”

“Clinton’s DOJ prosecuted over 1,800 S&L (savings and loans) executives, senior officials, and directors, and over 1,000 of them were sent to jail,” GAI adds.

But, despite having “promised more of the same,” especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s DOJ has not brought criminal charges against a single major Wall Street executive.

The Bush and Clinton administrations’ track records on prosecuting white-collar crime, and the Obama administration’s failure to do so, Schweizer said, is “evidence that this has less to do with some sort of partisan or philosophical issue.”

Bush – 1,300 convictions; 

Clinton – 1,000 convictions; 

Obama – Zero attempts

Think about that: none. Not so much as a single TRY at convicting anyone. What does THAT tell you about who is guarding the hen-house?

And after you have reached the fairly obvious conclusion, please allow Mr.  Groulx to confirm your suspicions:

And why the difference in prosecuting the law?  The GAI report reveals that the Department of Justice upper echelon is stacked with attorneys, including Eric Holder,  from law firms representing the very same companies involved in the financial meltdown of 2008, as well as financial corporations with questionable actions during the Obama administration…AIG, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, ING, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wilmington Trust, and John Corzine’s MF Global.

These very same DoJ attorneys also happen to be some of Obama’s biggest bundlers for Obama’s 2008 bid for president.  

“When we think of cronyism and the problems of cronyism and crony capitalism, we think in terms of economic loss and gain,” Schweizer said in a phone interview. ”What we’re showing here is that cronyism is now permeating our justice system. So, it’s not just a question of dollars and cents, it’s a question of whether you’re going to face legal jeopardy or not on what you’re doing.”

This is classic misdirection. Accuse the other guy of doing what you yourself are doing. Obama constantly harps on Romney being the Wall Street guy who wants to steal your lunch money, and all the while he fills his administration with Wall Street guys and then shields them from any legal repercussions. With a complicit media and a totally gullible Occupy Movement at their disposal, it’s worked pretty darn well so far.

—–

The Left is incredibly adept at this tactic, which is helped along by their Media boot-lickers. Their repeated cries of “racism” are another example of this ploy, and can literally be seen almost every day. Last night on MSNBC was just the most recent example: 

See what I mean? Absolutely disgusting. 

Since many on the Left view everything through the prism of race (and this Tourè guy is one of the worst), they merely have to point and say, “(X) is a Racist!” and the media dutifully scurries to (X) and asks, “(X), why are you racist??!”  Actually, I remember when (prior to his death) Breitbart took to Twitter and made up sarcastic headlines for a new “pretend” show starring Tourè which he called “That Broccoli Is Racist!”   Funny, funny stuff. Andrew loved to point out the ridiculous and make it a hundred times MORE ridiculous, in order for it to be seen more easily. And Tourè is, at the very least, ridiculous.

—–

Whether we’re discussing race or Wall Street, the basic point can be summed up in the old phrase “Don’t listen to what someone SAYS; Look at what they DO“. And right now, what we see Obama and his flunkies “DOing” as far as Wall Street is concerned should have them either thrown in jail or, at least, thrown out of office.

As much as I’d enjoy the former, I’m willing to settle for the latter.

The New American Dream: Lawsuits

I am no fan of lawsuits. That’s not to say that there aren’t real abuses warranting legal action in the country; there are. Rather, it is the stupid, punitive and illogical lawsuits (which exist to simply target the deepest pockets) that drive me batty.

Working in the insurance industry for close to 20 years probably has something to do with my view, but you don’t need to have had my vantage point to see that lawsuit abuse is having a deleterious effect on our economy and freedom.

We’ve talked about some truly stupid cases before (look HERE and HERE for examples), but this one is as mind-blowing as any of those.

From NewsOK.com:

MIAMI, OK — Frivolous litigation ignited a series of lawsuits that is causing an Ottawa County gas can maker to close, said Rocky Flick, CEO of Blitz U.S.A. 

Blitz U.S.A./F3 Brands in Miami filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Nov. 9. On Monday, the company announced it would close July 31 and lay off 117 workers.

“This is quite a blow,” said Chuck Evans, plant manager. “We hope another plant comes in and takes over.”

In 1992, U.S. Metal Container became Blitz U.S.A., partly due to a switch to plastic containers. For years, U.S. Metal Container sold gas cans to government agencies for military use. In 1966, it was the only gas can manufacturer in the U.S., and a year later the gas can was painted bright red and sold to thousands of customers nationwide, the company’s website says.

Company officials said product liability lawsuits prompted the company to file bankruptcy.The lawsuits mostly involved people pouring gasoline out of a gas can onto an open fire, and the vapors igniting and causing injuries.

“We got 100 percent of the lawsuits even though we don’t have 100 percent of the gas cans out there,” Evans said.

Flick said the company was unable to put together a reorganization plan.

The 50-year-old company will have its assets sold Sept. 6, he said.

Flick said once the first lawsuit was settled, the floodgates of litigation were opened.

“The insurance company thought it was best to settle,” Flick said. “The first lawsuit settled for around $1 million, the last lawsuit for around $10 million, but most of the lawsuits were between $5 (million) to $10 million.”

The company went to trial on two cases, winning one and losing the other, a $4 million verdict involving the death of a child.

The jury found Blitz 70 percent liable, Flick said.

The girl, 4, was living in an unheated camper in Utah when her father poured gasoline into a woodstove, which ignited, Flick said. The child and her father caught on fire, the father ran out of the camper and left the child inside while he tried to put flames out that were on him, Flick said.

The case is on appeal.

Now come on: this mental midget poured gas onto a woodstove, it ignited, and the makers of the GAS CAN are liable? Really? Is no one responsible for their own idiocy anymore?

If I back my car into a tree, can I sue the car manufacturer? If I drop my ballpoint pen into the washing machine and ruin my shirts, am I now allowed to sue PaperMate®??

If that’s the case, we’ll never have a small business open in this country again. Why would you take the inherent risk of trying to eke out a living working for yourself if you think that your life’s work could be confiscated by someone (with a lower IQ than your inanimate product) suing you, making you pay for your defense and, even worse…they might actually win?

Where does this end?

It ends when we stop appointing justices to courts who view everyone as a victim (except Conservatives and Christians, of course). It ends when the working folks stop trying to get out of jury duty, which too often leaves juries populated by the very people who are prone to bring a stupid case like this to trial.

It ends when we, as citizens, demand it to end.

Some on the Left bristle when they hear Conservatives say we need to take our country back. They whine something along the lines of “take it back from WHOM, exactly”? The answer should be that we need to take it back from those who would see it fall into ruin, and even from those who would merely turn a blind eye to the societal wreckage which surrounds them.

As I commented on another blog recently, if the United States was a train, we’d be running out of track. Either we each stand up, hit the brakes and turn this thing around…or we’re all going over the edge. Together.

Catholic Hospitals on Obama’s Compromise: “On second thought…NO”.

Courtesy of WSJ.com:

The head of the Catholic hospitals trade group reversed her support for the Obama administration’s proposed compromise on a controversial requirement that employers cover contraception in workers’ health plans. Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, was the most high-profile Catholic to speak in support of President Barack Obama‘s February announcement that the federal government would allow religious employers that object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it for their workers to insurance companies.

In a formal submission to federal regulators, Sister Keehan wrote that the Catholic hospitals group had decided all of the options being discussed were “unduly cumbersome and would be unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns of all of our members and other Church ministries.”

I confess I didn’t pay enough attention to this whole issue when it was fresh.  So I went back and read President Obama’s announcement, and I can see why Sister Keehan initially approved.  She was probably sucked in momentarily by the affable, gracious-sounding rhetoric,  just as I was:   “I know how important the work that faith-based organizations do (sic) and how much impact they can have in their communities,” the President averred.

After “explaining” what the compromise would entail, he reiterated (twice):

 ”The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.  Let me repeat:  These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services.  But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they’ll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.”

Now I don’t have the most brilliant business mind, but that sounds like some pretty fancy footwork to me.  Justturnright thought so several weeks ago:

Further, the argument that “the coverage will be provided for free” is specious and outright laughable. Even the LA Times called such statements “magical thinking” back in February.

It stands to reason:  the insurance company is not Grandpa Gus, paying your bill out of the kindness of its corporate heart.  That money is coming from somewhere.  Typically it comes from premiums, whether the employer is paying them, the employee is paying them, or they’re sharing the cost.  If neither the employer nor the employee is required to pay anything for a particular service, then–golly gee whillikers, do you really think the insurance company is going to fork it over out of its profits?  Do you still get quarters from the Tooth Fairy?

Obviously, the insurance companies will be passing those costs along.  Now, do you think they’ll be carefully raising the premiums of only non-objecting, nonreligious employers?  Good heavens, that sounds like discrimination!  No, I suspect what cleverer people figured out a long time ago, that everyone’s premiums will go up in order to pay for this cockamamie government scheme.

And for that reason–among others–Sister Keehan has wisely washed her hands of any involvement with such a dubious compromise.

This is timely, as the bishops have organized a “Fortnight for Freedom,” which begins tomorrow, June 21st.

 Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action will emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country have scheduled special events that support a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.

This is a crucial period for the Church, and the addition of the hospitals into the fight is a critical blow to Obama’s claim that his compromise was anything of the sort.

Threats, Guns, Lawsuits, and other hazards of Blogging

I honestly haven’t been keeping up with this like I should, but I gotta tell ya: this is scary stuff.

——-

This isn’t a prank. A prank is convincing your brother that a monster actually DOES live in the closet. A prank is tying up someone’s house in surveyor’s tape (…not that I would ever do such things….).

Convincing a SWAT team that I just gunned down my wife, am still armed and very dangerous is NOT a prank. Considering all of the things that could have potentially gone wrong in that scenario, that is a de facto attempt on someone’s life.

After Fox News covered it a week ago, ABCnews.com finally decided to cover this, as well:

A number of conservative bloggers allege they have been targeted through the use of harassment tactics such as SWAT-ting (fooling 911 operators into sending emergency teams to their homes), in retaliation for posts they have written, and now Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has stepped into the matter. He has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to investigate the SWAT-ting cases to see if federal laws have been violated.

—

“Regardless of any potential political differences that may exist, threats and intimidation have no place in our national political discourse. Those who choose to enter into that political discourse should not have to worry about potential threats to their or their family’s safety,” Chambliss wrote in the letter.

The entire article is fairly long, so I’ll just link to it again and borrow another small section:

But several conservative bloggers have been vocal about who they believe is responsible for the SWAT-tings and other forms of harassment — Brett Kimberlin, a man who was convicted of a series of bombings in Speedway, Indiana in the 1980s and made headlines in 1988 when he claimed to have once sold marijuana to then-vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle.

—

Kimberlin, who is now the director of a non-profit organization called Justice Through Music, told ABC News that he did not commit or ask anyone to conduct the SWAT-ting hoaxes that were perpetrated against Erickson and Frey.

“Of course not, it’s ridiculous.  It’s totally irresponsible for them to even say this,” Kimberlin told ABC News.   “There is no truth to anything about the SWAT-ting.”

But some conservative bloggers contend Kimberlin and his associates are responsible for other forms of harassment as well.  Robert Stacy McCain, a contributor to the American Spectator and founder of The Other McCain Blog, wrote about Kimberlin, and shortly after, his wife’s place of employment received a phone call from Kimberlin accusing McCain of harassment.  Based on Kimberlin’s ability to find his wife’s employer, McCain became concerned Kimberlin also knew the location of his home, so the McCain family relocated to an undisclosed location.

“If I was going to continue doing this story, I couldn’t do it from my home,” McCain told ABC News. ”This kind of intimidation — it’s a threat to protected first amendment expression.”

Does anyone other than me have the first 15 minutes of ‘When A Stranger Calls’ running through their head right now?

It gets worse:

Ali Akbar, the president of the National Blogger’s Club, an organization established to support bloggers, recently was targeted by an anonymous website which posted the address of his mother’s home in Forth Worth, Texas, along with a picture of the house. Akbar and other bloggers believe the website, “Breitbart Unmasked,” is linked to Kimberlin.

The National Blogger’s Club recently started a relief fund to help ease the financial woes of bloggers who are undergoing lawsuits, including one lawsuit by Kimberlin against blogger Aaron Walker, and Akbar believes the anonymous post of his mother’s home address was a response to the creation of this fund.

“They decided to take this from a discussion about me trying to help some members of my club, and they tried to disable us,” Akbar said.

Why is it that leftists always go this route? Unions, Occupy, the Greenie-weanies and now these freaks: they don’t want to discuss anything. “The science is settled“, …even when it’s not. “This is what Democracy looks like“….except when they lose. And now this.

Bottom line: they just want you to shut up. The side that calls itself non-judgmental, tolerant, and open-minded….wants you to shut up. You, yes YOU, with all of your dissenting opinions, “facts” and ”logic”….shut up, shuttin’ up. Now, please.

But you know what?

Ain’t gonna happen.

Suit Yourself

We just discussed the need to solve the problem of lawsuit abuse the other day (In Lawsuits We Trust). Please consider this the most recent, and perhaps best, example of just why such reform is needed.

Read through this first, courtesy of Bill Hanstock at sbnation.com:

Really, this could be a primer on how NOT to file a suit.

From Bill:

“What can we learn about the plaintiff from this document? Well, we know first of all that he owns a typewriter, but not a computer. We can further assume that he had only one piece of paper to work with, given the amount of “corrections” made on the fly.

He also appears to be technically filing for “COPRIGHT INFRINGEMENTU” which may not be the same thing as copyright infringement. Hopefully he didn’t accidentally begin a case about something having to do with police rights.”

Even better, Johnnie N. Perry goes so far as refer to his invention as a “three-point stands”. Here’s Mr. Perry’s invention:

Improper pluralization aside, when I think “three points”, I’m generally looking for..three points.

Call me crazy.

—————————

My advice: if you are thinking of filing a “COPRIGHT INFRINGEMENTU” suit, do yourself a favor —  find a computer, make sure it has SpellCheck, or at the very least hire a 4th grader as your proof reader.

Otherwise, you could end up as one very unhappy “PALINTIFF“.

In Lawsuits We Trust

Stick with me here: there’s good news towards the end of this.

Every year there are thousands upon thousands of lawsuits filed in the United States, with many of them being patently ridiculous. According to facesoflawsuitabuse.org, here are some of the most outrageous ones from 2011 alone:

•A kidnapped couple is sued by a convict who kidnapped them because they did not aid him in evading police.

•A mother is sued by her adult children because she sent cards that did not include gifts and because she allegedly plays favorites.

•A woman files a lawsuit asking for $5 million after she disagrees with a store over an 80 cent refund she was supposed to receive.

•A mother files a lawsuit against an exclusive preschool because of her child’s college prospects.

•A man sued Procter & Gamble over toothpaste left in the tube.

•A woman files a lawsuit because of a movie trailer that does not have enough driving in it. The trailer the movie was for? ‘Drive.’

The entire funny-yet-depressing list can be found here.

——————————

Now the truly troubling aspect of all this is that these companies had to defend themselves in court, usually racking up significant costs. Those costs get put right back into the price of their products, and we all end up paying more. Isn’t that great?

Why is nothing being done about this by our elected leaders? What about some ideas from the folks who always seem to be “fixing” everything, other than things which actually need fixing?

No more calls; we have a winner! An individual state did take a significant step towards curbing this insanity.

From tennessean.com:

“Tennessee Republicans have a message for those filing civil lawsuits: You better make sure your facts are in order or you could be on the hook for up to $10,000 in attorney fees for the other side.

Lawmakers last week approved legislation that would penalize people who file lawsuits that are later dismissed as baseless. They would have to pay up to $10,000 to cover court costs and their opponent’s attorney fees.

“It is a very limited loser-pays bill,” said Rep. Vance Dennis, R-Savannah, the bill’s House sponsor. “It goes to purely frivolous lawsuits, lawsuits that don’t have any merit.”

I read that and got a little verklempt. It is possible to look at a problem and pass legislation that might help fix the problem! God bless those crazy, knuckle-dragging, bible-clinging GOP Tennesseans for bringing some common-sense to the courtrooms of America, or at least Tennessee. For the moment, that makes one significant problem addressed….

………and at least a million to go.

Hey, it’s a start.